-DAD (HC) Tillman v. Board of Parole Hearings, No. 2:2011cv01093 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/27/11 ORDERING that 5 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED; RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice; 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
-DAD (HC) Tillman v. Board of Parole Hearings Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY B. TILLMAN, Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 No. 2:11-cv-1093 LKK DAD (HC) vs. BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, ORDER AND Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 19 Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to 20 afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is 21 granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 The court’s records reveal that petitioner has previously filed an application for a 23 writ of habeas corpus raising identical claims against the California Board of Parole Hearings. 24 See Case No. 1:10-cv-2091 OWW SMS (E.D. Cal.). Petitioner’s previous habeas action was 25 filed on October 8, 2010, and was denied on the merits on March 3, 2011. Before petitioner can 26 proceed with the instant application he must move in the United States Court of Appeals for the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Ninth Circuit for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 2244(b)(3). Therefore, petitioner's application must be dismissed without prejudice to its 3 refiling upon obtaining authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 4 Circuit. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s 5 6 application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 7 8 prejudice. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 9 10 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 11 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 12 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 13 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 14 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 15 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 DATED: July 27, 2011. 17 18 19 20 21 DAD:12 till1093.success 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.