(HC) Owens v. Yates, No. 2:2010cv02027 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/6/11: Respondent's October 26, 2010, motion to dismiss 11 is granted in part, in that this successive petition is dismissed without prejudice to its refiling with a copy of an order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing petitioner to file a successive petition. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(HC) Owens v. Yates Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FREDRICK OWENS, JR., 11 Petitioner, 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-10-2027 GEB GGH P JAMES YATES, 14 Respondents. 15 ORDER / 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On February 25, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither 22 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 25 ORDERED that: 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 25, 2011, are adopted in full; and 2. Respondent’s October 26, 2010, motion to dismiss (docket #11) is granted in 4 part, in that this successive petition is dismissed without prejudice to its refiling with a copy of an 5 order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing petitioner to file a successive petition. 6 Dated: April 6, 2011 7 8 9 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 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.