(HC) Castillo v. Evans, No. 1:2005cv00609 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2005)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Petition be dismissed as duplicative; Motion referred to Judge Robert E. Coyle, Objections to R&R due by 6/20/2005 signed by Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/16/05. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
(HC) Castillo v. Evans Doc. 8 Case 1:05-cv-00609-REC-LJO Document 8 Filed 05/17/2005 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 HENRY JOSEPH CASTILLO, 13 Petitioner, 14 v. 15 16 M. S. EVANS, 17 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV F 05 0609 REC LJO HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 18 19 20 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 21 22 On July 29, 2004, Petitioner filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. This petition was assigned case number “CV F 04 6032 OWW DLB HC.” 23 24 On April 29, 2005, Petitioner filed a second federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. This petition was assigned case number “CV F 05 0609 REC LJO HC.” 25 The Court has reviewed both of the pending federal petitions listed above and finds that the 26 second petition challenges the same conviction and judgment as the first petition. In light of the 27 duplicative nature of the petitions, the Court finds that the instant action should be dismissed. Should 28 Petitioner wish to raise additional claims, he may only do so in the first pending action. U.S . District C ourt E. D . C alifor nia cd 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:05-cv-00609-REC-LJO 1 Filed 05/17/2005 Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION 2 3 Document 8 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED as duplicative. 4 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Robert E. Coyle, United 5 States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 6 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 7 Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the 8 court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 9 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and 10 filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. 11 The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The 12 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 13 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: b9ed48 May 16, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U.S . District C ourt E. D . C alifor nia cd 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.