(HC) Woods v. Kernan, No. 2:2016cv01838 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 8/31/16 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Woods v. Kernan Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER WOODS, 12 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-1838 MCE GGH P Petitioner, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SCOTT KERNAN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court has not ruled on the application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis. 21 The court’s records reveal that petitioner has previously filed an application for a writ of 22 habeas corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in this case. The previous 23 application was filed on March 17, 2008, and was denied on the merits on March 30, 2009. See 24 Woods v. Martel, No. 2:08-cv-0585 JKS. Before petitioner can proceed with the instant 25 application, he must move in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an order 26 authorizing the district court to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Therefore, 27 petitioner’s application must be dismissed without prejudice to its re-filing upon obtaining 28 authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 In accordance with the above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 6 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 7 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 8 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 9 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 DATED: August 31, 2016 11 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Wood1838.success 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
