Caridad v. Oreol
Filing
10
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 05/11/15 ORDERING the clerk of the court shall assign a District Judge to this action. U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell randomly assigned to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BENJAMIN T. CARIDAD,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-0403 CKD P
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER AND
HARRY OREOL.,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed an amended
18
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 9; see ECF No. 8.)
19
In considering whether to dismiss an action as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(d), the court
20
has especially broad discretion. Conway v. Fugge, 439 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir. 1971). The Ninth
21
Circuit has held that an action is frivolous if it lacks arguable substance in law and fact. Franklin
22
v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court’s determination of whether a
23
complaint or claim is frivolous is based on “‘an assessment of the substance of the claim
24
presented, i.e., is there a factual and legal basis, of constitutional dimension, for the asserted
25
wrong, however inartfully pleaded.’” Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227 (citations omitted).
26
The amended petition was filed with the court on April 30, 2015. Court records reveal
27
that on June 23, 2014, petitioner filed a petition in another habeas action, challenging the same
28
2001 conviction for arson and residential burglary. Caridad v. Oreol, No. 2:14-cv-1847 KJM AC
1
1
(E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 27.1 Respondent in that case has filed a motion to dismiss the petition,
2
which is currently pending. Id., ECF No. 40. Due to the duplicative nature of the present action,
3
the court finds it frivolous and, therefore, will recommend that this action be dismissed. 28
4
U.S.C. § 1915(d).
5
6
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district
judge to this action.
7
8
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
9
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this
10
case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served
11
with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court.
12
The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
13
Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
14
may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th
15
Cir. 1991).
16
Dated: May 11, 2015
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 / cari0403.123
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
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).
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?