(HC) Gray v. Harrington, No. 2:2009cv01690 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 07/19/11 RECOMMENDING that that this action be dismissed on the ground that the petition is second or successive and petitioner has not demonstrated that the Ninth Circuit has granted him leave to file it in this court. Objections to these F&Rs due w/i 20 days; referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
(HC) Gray v. Harrington Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ADAM GRAY, Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 vs. K. HARRINGTON, Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 16 No. CIV S-09-1690 MCE EFB P Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 17 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 3, 2011, the court found that the application for a writ of habeas corpus 18 was second or successive, and that petitioner had not demonstrated that he obtained leave from 19 the appellate court to proceed thereon. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), (4). The court compared the 20 petition in this case to the petition in case number Civ. S-07-0126 MCE EFB P. The court 21 determined that petitioner challenges the same judgment in both actions. Accordingly, the court 22 gave petitioner 30 days to demonstrate that he had obtained leave from the appellate court to 23 proceed on the instant petition. The court admonished petitioner that failure to comply with the 24 order would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed as an unauthorized second 25 or successive petition. More than 30 days have elapsed and petitioner has not responded to the 26 order to show cause. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed on the ground 2 that the petition is second or successive and petitioner has not demonstrated that the Ninth 3 Circuit has granted him leave to file it in this court. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days after 6 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 7 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 8 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 9 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 10 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In his objections 11 petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an 12 appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (the 13 district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse 14 to the applicant). 15 Dated: July 19, 2011. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.