Thornton v. Cate et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE; DENYING AS MOOT 2 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/27/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2011)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 WILLIAM CECIL THORNTON, 4 5 6 No. C 11-05091 CW (PR) Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE; DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. 7 MATTHEW CATE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 8 Respondents. (Docket no. 2) / 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility at Soledad (CTF), filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254, challenging conditions of his parole that require him to register as a sex offender. Specifically, Petitioner, who currently is in custody because of a violation of parole terms set in connection with a conviction obtained in the San Diego County Superior Court, maintains that he should not be required to register as a sex offender because such requirement is based on an expired 1990 Tennessee conviction for domestic violence. Although not mentioned in the petition, the Court takes judicial notice of records from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where Petitioner currently has several habeas corpus actions pending. In particular, the Court takes judicial notice of Thornton v. Strainer, Case No. C 1100190 LAB (JMA), filed by Petitioner in the Southern District on January 27, 2011, in which Petitioner challenges the Tennessee conviction and the California requirement that he register as a sex offender. Matthew Cate, Secretary of the California Department of 1 Corrections and Rehabilitation, is the respondent in that petition 2 and, as of October 24, 2011, the petition has been fully briefed. 3 Additionally, the Court takes judicial notice of Thornton v. 4 Strainer, Case No. C 11-01485 BEN (WMc), filed by Petitioner in the 5 Southern District on July 1, 2011, in which Petitioner similarly 6 challenged the sex offender registration requirement. 7 was dismissed on July 20, 2011, as duplicative of C 11-00190. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 That case Because it is clear that Petitioner currently is pursuing in the Southern District the same claims he raises in the instant petition, this petition is DISMISSED as duplicative. 11 Additionally, because Petitioner has been granted leave to 12 proceed in forma pauperis in the Southern District, his motion to 13 proceed in forma pauperis in this action is DENIED as moot. 14 filing fee is due. 15 16 No The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file. 17 This Order terminates Docket no. 2. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: 10/27/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 WILLIAM CECIL THORNTON, Case Number: CV11-05091 CW 4 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 5 v. 6 MATTHEW CATE et al, 7 Defendant. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on October 27, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 13 14 15 16 17 18 William Cecil Thornton V64547 Correctional Training Facility P.O. Box 705 Soledad, CA 93960 Dated: October 27, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?