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)
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?