Smith v. Foulk

Filing 6

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/2/2014 GRANTING 2 petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis; RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice; Objections due withing 14 days after being served with F & R's; Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES R. SMITH,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0529 JAM KJN P

Petitioner,
V.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FRED FOULK, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas

18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

20

Petitioner did not file his request to proceed in forma pauperis on the court’s form, but

21

review of his affidavit filed in Smith v. Foulk, Case No. 2:13-cv-2387 KJN P (E.D. Cal.) (ECF

22

No. 2), reveals that he is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to

23

proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

24

The court’s records reveal that petitioner filed a prior federal petition for writ of habeas

25

corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in the instant case. See Smith v.

26

McDonald, Case No. 2:09-cv-02967-MCE-GGH P. The previous petition was filed on October

27

23, 2009, and was denied on the merits by orders filed April 9, 2012, and March 8, 2013. (Id.,

28

ECF Nos. 51, 55.)
1

1

Before petitioner can proceed with the instant petition, he must obtain leave from the

2

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C.

3

§ 2244(b)(3). Therefore, the instant petition must be dismissed without prejudice to its refiling

4

should petitioner obtain such authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

5

Circuit.1
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application to

6
7

proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and

8
9

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without
prejudice.

10

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

11

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

12

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

13

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

14

Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections, he shall also address whether a

15

certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to which issues. A certificate of

16

appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial

17

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). Petitioner is advised that

18

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

19

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20

Dated: April 2, 2014

21

/smit0529.succ

22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

This is the second petition for writ of habeas corpus that petitioner has filed since his original
petition was denied on the merits. See Smith v. Foulk, 2:13-cv-2387 KJN P, filed November 18,
2013, and dismissed without prejudice on December 18, 2013, based on petitioner’s failure to
first seek authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Id., ECF
No. 6.
2