(HC) Powell v. Sisto, No. 2:2009cv01823 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/31/2010 ORDERING that petitioner's 2 motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED; and this action shall be randomly assigned to a US District Judge; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed w/out prejudice. Assigned and Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due w/in 21 days.(Yin, K)

Download PDF
(HC) Powell v. Sisto Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 GREGORY ANTHONY POWELL, 10 11 12 Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-1823 DAD P vs. D.K. SISTO, 13 ORDER AND Respondent. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 16 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 17 This action was transferred to this court from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 18 California. 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 granted. 21 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court must now determine if the action is frivolous or malicious. 22 In considering whether to dismiss an action as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(d), the 23 court has especially broad discretion. Conway v. Fugge, 439 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir. 1971). The Ninth 24 Circuit has held that an action is frivolous if it lacks arguable substance in law and fact. Franklin v. 25 Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court's determination of whether a claim is 26 frivolous is based on “‘an assessment of the substance of the claim presented, i.e., is there a factual 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 and legal basis, of constitutional dimension, for the asserted wrong, however inartfully pleaded.’” 2 Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227 (citations omitted). 3 Petitioner's pending application for habeas relief in this matter was originally filed 4 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 17, 2009. This court's 5 own records reveal that on May 28, 2009, petitioner filed a petition in this court containing virtually 6 identical allegations and claims challenging his 2003 judgment of conviction entered in the Solano 7 County Superior Court. (No. Civ. S-09-1598 EFB P).1 Due to the duplicative nature of the present 8 action, the court finds it frivolous and, therefore, will dismiss the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 11 1. Petitioner’s June 17, 2009 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted; and 12 2. This action shall be randomly assigned to a U.S. District Judge. 13 Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 14 prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to 16 this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days after being 17 served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the 18 court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 19 Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 20 waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 DATED: March 31, 2010. 22 23 DAD:4 24 pow1823.123 25 1 26 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 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.