Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00579/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00579-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brook Bergman
Respondent
Travis Justin Cuellar
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAVIS JUSTIN CUELLAR,

Petitioner,

v.

BROOK BERGMAN, Madera County District 

Attorney,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00579-NONE-SKO (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION AS DUPLICATIVE 

AND SUCCESSIVE

[TEN DAY OBJECTION PERIOD]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He filed the instant action on April 23, 

2020, as a civil rights complaint. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner’s allegations relate entirely to his conviction 

in a state court criminal case, including the prosecutor’s alleged facilitating of “eavesdropping by 

sending a prosecuting agent to eav[e]sdrop on a private attorney-client meeting in an in custody 

holding area in the Madera Superior Courthouse.” (Id. at 5.) Petitioner alleges that this 

eavesdropping resulted in Respondent “obtain[ing] incriminating information, resulting in a 

conviction of Petitioner.” (Id.) Further, Petitioner requests that the Court “consider the plaintiff’s 

sentence time served based on the constitutional violations suffered” and “reverse conviction 

and/or dismiss charges.” (Id.) Because Petitioner’s claims sound in habeas, the complaint was

redesignated as a habeas action on April 29, 2020. (Doc. 3.)

Case 1:20-cv-00579-DAD-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/05/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Petitioner filed a prior habeas action challenging the same conviction and raising the same 

complaints in Cuellar v. People of the State of California, Case No. 20-cv-00427-AWI-SKO. In 

that action, the Court has recommended the petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 

exhaust state remedies (Doc. 4.) Because the instant petition is duplicative and successive of the 

prior petition, this action must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). 

RECOMMENDATION

The Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition be dismissed as duplicative and 

successive. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and 

Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 

California. Within ten days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections 

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within 

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00579-DAD-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/05/20 Page 2 of 2