Mills v. State Of California

Filing 3

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Craig M. Kellison recommending that this action be dismissed w/o prejudice. 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Kenneth Mills referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Waggoner, D)

Download PDF
(HC) Mills v. State Of California Doc. 3 Case 2:05-cv-01804-LKK-CMK Document 3 Filed 09/15/2005 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 The court notes that petitioner has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee ($5.00) for this action. See 28 U.S.C. 1914(a); 1915(a). Should petitioner file subsequent actions without filing an in forma pauperis affidavit, he will be responsible for the filing fee. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KENNETH MILLS, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. / Petitioner, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254.1 Petitioner's petition was filed with the court on September 8, 2005. The court's own records reveal that petitioner has several cases pending in this district.2 Civil Case 05-1735 DFL CMK, which was filed on August 26, 2005, contains allegations concerning mental health FINDINGS AND RECOMENDATIONS No. CIV S-05-1804 LKK CMK P A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). Petitioner's other cases include:CIV S-04-1649 DFL CMK P; CIV S-05-0947 MCE PAN P; CIV S-05-1153 LKK PAN P; and CIV S-05-1154 FCD KJM P; CIV S-05-1291 GEB KJM P; CIV S-051735 DFL CMK 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-01804-LKK-CMK Document 3 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 2 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 evaluations which are almost identical to the allegations against respondents in the September 8, 2005 complaint. Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court finds it frivolous and, therefore, will dismiss the petition. 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). Petitioner is cautioned that he should refrain from filing duplicative complaints with this court. If he desires to add something to complaints he has already filed, he must seek to amend that complaint; not file a new one. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(l). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." 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). DATED: September 13, 2005. ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?