DeLuna v. Biter
Filing
3
ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 5/27/14 ORDERING that the Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case; and recommending that the Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case; and it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Randomly assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DWAYNE THOMAS DELUNA,
12
No. 2:14-cv-1247 CKD P
Petitioner,
13
v.
14
MARTIN BITER,
15
ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Respondents.
16
Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding with counsel, has filed an application for a
17
18
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee.
Court records reveal that petitioner has previously filed an application for a writ of habeas
19
20
corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in this case. The previous application
21
was filed on October 30, 2000, assigned case number 2:00-cv-2414 LKK JFM P, and denied on
22
the merits on September 28, 2005.1 Petitioner attempted to appeal the denial of his application,
23
but the Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability on June 30, 2006.
Before petitioner can proceed with the application filed in this case, he must move in the
24
25
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an order authorizing this court to
26
consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Therefore, petitioner’s application must be
27
28
1
Petitioner erroneously refers to this federal habeas corpus petition as an appeal to the California
Supreme Court. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 25.
1
1
dismissed without prejudice to its refiling upon obtaining the required authorization from the
2
Ninth Circuit.2
3
4
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district
court judge to this case; and
5
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
6
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
7
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
8
after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
9
objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
10
Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the
11
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
12
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
Dated: May 27, 2014
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
delu1247.sp
21
22
23
24
25
2
26
27
28
The application before the court is actually petitioner’s second successive application. The
application filed in 2:08-cv-1135 WBS KJM P was dismissed on February 4, 2010 also because
petitioner failed to obtain the required authorization from the Ninth Circuit before filing.
Petitioner also erroneously refers to this federal habeas corpus petition as an appeal to the
California Supreme Court. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 28.
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?