(HC) Vice v. Walker, No. 2:2009cv02647 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS ORDERING the clerk of the court shall randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this case. U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell randomly assigned to this case. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
(HC) Vice v. Walker Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 HERBERT C. VICE, Petitioner, 10 vs. 11 12 No. CIV S-09-2647 EFB P JAMES WALKER, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. 13 / 14 Petitioner, a state prisoner without counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 15 16 corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 25, 2010, the court ordered petitioner to, within 30 17 days, demonstrate either that the petition is not second or successive or submit evidence that the 18 appellate court has authorized this court to consider the petition. The court warned petitioner 19 that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that this action be 20 dismissed upon the ground that petitioner has filed a successive petition without authorization 21 from the appellate court. The 30 days have passed and petitioner has not responded to the 22 court’s order. 23 As explained in the February 25, 2010 order, the instant petition is second or successive 24 because petitioner challenges the same judgment now that he previously challenged and which 25 //// 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 was adjudicated on the merits. See Vice v. Pliler, No. Civ. S-04-0044 GEB CMK.1 Since 2 petitioner has not demonstrated that the appellate court has authorized this court to consider a 3 second or successive petition, this action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Burton 4 v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (per 5 curiam). 6 7 8 9 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 12 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 13 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 14 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 15 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 16 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 Dated: April 12, 2010. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 26 The 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.