Magee v. Clark
Filing
20
ORDER Denying Miscellaneous Motions (Docs. # 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/30/2010. It is ORDERED that Petitioner's miscellaneous motions filed on March 15, 17, 23, and 25 (Docs. #16-19) are DENIED. (Scrivner, E)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 RUCHELL MAGEE, 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14 K. CLARK, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 On September 21, 2009, Petitioner, who was determined to be a vexatious litigant, filed a 20 petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. On November 29, 2009, the undersigned issued a 21 findings and recommendation that recommended the petition be summarily dismissed. On 22 January 25, 2010, the District Court adopted the findings and recommendation in part, but granted 23 Petitioner leave to file an amended petition only with respect to a potential claim that the parole 24 board continues to rely on unchanging factors in denying parole. Petitioner was specifically warned 25 that he was not permitted to bring challenges to his underlying convictions for numerous reasons. On 26 February 9, 2010, Petitioner filed a first amended petition. The undersigned issued an order on 27 February 17, 2010, directing Respondent to file a response to the petition; however, Respondent was 28
U . S . D is t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia cd
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-CV-01663 OWW GSA HC ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS [Docs. #16, 17, 18, 19]
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
instructed to ignore the various additional petitions that Petitioner attached to his petition since those petitions were not permitted. Since then, Petitioner has flooded this Court with new habeas petitions and various motions, all in an attempt to bring additional challenges involving his underlying convictions. As Petitioner has been informed on previous occasions, these additional claims and challenges will not be allowed. This case is proceeding solely on Petitioner's challenges to the parole board's denial. This is not an opportunity for Petitioner to relitigate the underlying convictions or open up for consideration any and every claim involving Petitioner's criminal history. Only those facts and arguments relevant to the parole board's decision will be considered. This means that as far as this Court is concerned, Petitioner's convictions are settled and final. Should he wish to challenge those convictions, he must do so in the proper venue, which in this case is the Central District of California. Further, he must abide by the Orders filed on July 19, 1988, in In the Matter of Ruchell Cinque Magee, CV-S-861299-MLS, CV-S-86-1394-EJG, CV-S-87-0149 LKK, CV-S-87-0382-LKK, CV-S-87-0450-EJG, CV-S-87-0482-LKK, CV-S-87-1412-EJG, CV-S-87-1543-RAR, CV-S-88-0030-LKK, CV-S-880586-MLS, CV-S-88-0656-LKK, and CV-S-88-0782-MLS, in which Petitioner was found to have abused the processes available to indigent litigants. ORDER Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's miscellaneous motions filed on March 15, 17, 23, and 25 [Docs. #16-19] are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij
March 30, 2010
/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23 24 25 26 27 28
U . S . D is t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia cd
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?
