Stith v. Warden
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THEODORE ERVIN STITH,
No. 2:17-cv-01064 CKD
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Examination of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis reveals
that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all
petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted that review.
Court records reveal that petitioner has previously filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in this case. See Stith v. McComber,
2:15-cv-0504 JAM DB (dismissed on August 11, 2016 for failure to comply with the statute of
limitations). Before petitioner can proceed with the instant successive petition, he must obtain
authorization from United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3). Because it does not appear that petitioner has obtained the required authorization,
petitioner’s habeas petition must be dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS HERBY ORDERED that
1. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is granted; and
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district court judge to this case.
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 fourteen days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections, he may also address whether a
certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to which issue(s). Where, as here,
the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if
the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court
was correct in its procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v.
Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive
the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: June 6, 2017
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?