Nguyen v. Davey
Filing
6
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/8/2015 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 21 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DAI NGUYEN,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-02054 KJM AC P
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
DAVID DAVEY, Warden,
Corcoran State Prison,
Respondent.
16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas
17
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.
Examination of the request to proceed in forma pauperis demonstrates that it is
20
21
incomplete.1
More importantly, the court’s records reveal that petitioner has previously filed an
22
23
application for a writ of habeas corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in this
24
case. See Nguyen v. Scribner, Case No. 2:06-cv-01389 GEB CMK P. The previous application
25
was filed on June 22, 2006, and denied as untimely on October 31, 2006. Thereafter, the United
26
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied petitioner’s request for a certificate of
27
28
1
Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is not set forth on the proper form, does not
provide the required information, and fails to include the appropriate documentation.
1
1
2
appealability.
Before petitioner can proceed with the instant application, he must move in the Ninth
3
Circuit Court of Appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.
4
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Therefore, petitioner’s instant application must be dismissed without
5
prejudice to its re-filing upon authorization from the Court of Appeals.
6
7
8
9
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without
prejudice.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21)
10
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
11
objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
12
Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the
13
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
14
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
15
DATED: December 8, 2015
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?