Opinion

(HC) Jaborie Brown v. Warden

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Aug 24, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.5%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JABORIE BROWN, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01156-JLT (HC)

)

12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

) ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

13 v. )

) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

14 WARDEN,

) DISMISS PETITION AS DUPLICATIVE AND

15 Respondent. ) SUCCESSIVE

)

16 ) [TEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD]

17

18 On August 18, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition in this Court. (Doc. 1.)

19 Petitioner challenges his March 31, 2005 conviction. Petitioner is already proceeding with a petition

20 challenging this conviction in Brown v. Warden of U.S.P. Atwater, Case No. 1:20-cv-00233-SAB

21 (HC). In that action, the matter is awaiting a response from Respondent.

22 Review of the petitions filed in both actions reveals that the instant petition duplicates the prior

23 petition. A federal court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same grounds as a

24 prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1).

25 ORDER

26 Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to assign a District Judge to the case.

27 RECOMMENDATION

28 The Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be dismissed as duplicative and successive.

1 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

2 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

3 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within ten

4 days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court. Such a

5 document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.”

6 The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).

7 Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

8 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

9

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: August 24, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.