Stith v. Warden

Filing 7

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 06/06/17 granting 3 Motion to Proceed IFP. The clerk of the court is directed to 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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THEODORE ERVIN STITH, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-01064 CKD Petitioner, v. ORDER AND WARDEN, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Examination of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis reveals 20 that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed 21 in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all 23 petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the 24 petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted that review. 25 Court records reveal that petitioner has previously filed a petition for a writ of habeas 26 corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in this case. See Stith v. McComber, 27 2:15-cv-0504 JAM DB (dismissed on August 11, 2016 for failure to comply with the statute of 28 limitations). Before petitioner can proceed with the instant successive petition, he must obtain 1 1 authorization from United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2 2244(b)(3). Because it does not appear that petitioner has obtained the required authorization, 3 petitioner’s habeas petition must be dismissed. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HERBY ORDERED that 5 1. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is granted; and 6 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district court judge to this case. 7 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 10 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.” If petitioner files objections, he may also address whether a 13 certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to which issue(s). Where, as here, 14 the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if 15 the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 16 was correct in its procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable 17 whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. 18 Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 19 (2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 20 the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 Dated: June 6, 2017 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12/stit1064.Success.docx 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?