(HC) Burgess v. Knowles, No. 2:2009cv02632 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/11/10 recommending that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed on the grounds that petitioner has, without authorization, filed a second or successive petition. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
(HC) Burgess v. Knowles Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RUSSELL D. BURGESS, Petitioner, 11 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-09-2632 JAM EFB P MIKE KNOWLES 14 15 16 Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / Petitioner, a prisoner without counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 17 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 22, 2010, the court ordered petitioner to demonstrate within 30 18 days that his petition was not second or successive or that the appellate court has authorized this 19 court to consider the petition. The court warned petitioner that failure to comply with the order 20 would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 21 22 23 24 The 30-day period has expired and petitioner has not filed the required documents or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that his petition be dismissed on the grounds that petitioner has, without authorization, filed a second or successive petition. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 3 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 4 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 5 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 Dated: August 11, 2010. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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.