Bludworth v. Allison
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/7/2011 ORDERING that petitioner's 6 application to proceed IFP is GRANTED; petitioner's 7 application to proceed IFP is DENIED as duplicative; to the extent that petitioner seeks to proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis, the petition is DENIED; and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice as a second and successive petition. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
TIMOTHY LEE BLUDWORTH,
11
12
13
14
15
16
Petitioner,
No. CIV S-11-2406 DAD P
vs.
KATHLEEN ALLISON,
Respondent.
ORDER
/
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas
17
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has also filed motions to proceed in forma
18
pauperis. On September 21, 2011, petitioner consented to having a United States Magistrate
19
Judge conduct all further proceedings in this case.
20
Examination of the in forma pauperis application, filed on October 13, 2011, and
21
petitioner’s trust account statement, filed on September 12, 2011, confirm that petitioner is
22
unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the October 13 application to proceed in forma
23
pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma
24
pauperis, filed on October 26, 2011, will be denied as duplicative.
25
Petitioner challenges his 1999 judgment of conviction entered in the San Joaquin
26
County Superior Court. Court records reveal that petitioner has previously filed a federal habeas
1
1
petition challenging this same conviction.1 See Bludworth v. Evans, CIV S-08-0451 LKK EFB
2
P. In that earlier filed case, respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely was granted
3
and the federal habeas action was dismissed on March 26, 2010.
4
Before petitioner can proceed with the instant application for habeas relief he
5
must move in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an order authorizing
6
the district court to consider such a second or successive application. See 28 U.S.C.
7
§ 2244(b)(3); see also McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) (“dismissal of a
8
section 2254 habeas petition for failure to comply with the statute of limitations renders
9
subsequent petitions second or successive for purposes of the AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. §2244(b).”).
10
Therefore, petitioner’s application for federal habeas relief must be dismissed without prejudice
11
to its refiling upon obtaining authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
12
Circuit.
13
Petitioner has attached to his most recent federal habeas petition, a document
14
styled, “Writ of Error Coram Vobis [sic] Motion To Vacate the Judgement.” (Doc. No. 1 at 8.)
15
To the extent that petitioner seeks to use this common law writ to challenge his state conviction,
16
his petition also fails. The writ of error coram nobis may only be used to challenge a federal
17
conviction. See Yasui v. United States, 772 F.2d 1496, 1498 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The writ of error
18
coram nobis fills a void in the availability of post-conviction remedies in federal criminal
19
cases.”); see also Fegan v. Warden, California State Prison, No. 1:10-cv-01690-JLT HC, 2010
20
WL 3769129, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2010) (citing several cases in which courts have
21
explained that the writ of error coram nobis is unavailable to attack a judgment of conviction
22
entered in state court). Therefore, petitioner may not proceed with a petition for a writ of error
23
coram nobis.
24
1
25
26
A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman,
803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir.
1980) (“a court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as the records
of an inferior court in other cases.”).
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Petitioner’s October 13, 2011 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
3
No. 6) is granted;
4
5
2. Petitioner’s October 26, 2011 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
No. 7) is denied as duplicative;
6
7
3. To the extent that petitioner seeks to proceed with a petition for a writ of error
coram nobis, the petition is denied; and
8
9
4. This action is dismissed without prejudice as a second and successive petition.
DATED: November 7, 2011.
10
11
12
DAD:4
blud2406.succ
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?
