-CMK (HC) Splawn v. Cate, No. 2:2010cv02584 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 1/24/2011 RECOMMENDING that ptnr's petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-CMK (HC) Splawn v. Cate Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 STEVEN M. SPLAWN, 10 11 12 No. CIV S-10-2584-GEB-CMK-P Petitioner, vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATTHEW CATE, 13 Respondent. 14 / 15 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with retained counsel, brings this petition 16 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s 17 petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1). 18 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary 19 dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any 20 exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Here, 21 petitioner is challenging his August 24, 2007, conviction out of the Shasta County Superior 22 Court. He indicates in his petition that he has another petition pending in this court, case number 23 2:10-cv-00121. A review of the court’s records reveal that petitioner’s other habeas action is still 24 pending.1 25 1 26 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Generally, a habeas petitioner is required to raise all colorable grounds for relief in 2 his first petition. See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 860 (1994) (O’Connor, J., concurring), 3 Habeas Corpus Rule 2(c). Under § 2244(b)(2), “[a] claim presented in a second or successive 4 habeas corpus application . . . that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed” 5 unless one of two circumstances, not relevant here, exist. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). The Ninth 6 Circuit has directed that where a pro se petitioner files a new petition before the district court has 7 adjudicated the petitioner’s prior petition, the court should liberally construe the new petition as a 8 motion to amend the petition rather than as a “second or successive” petition. See Woods v. 9 Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2008). However, as indicated in Woods, where petitioner 10 proceeds with counsel, such liberal construction of a new petition is not mandated as counsel 11 presumably knows that all claims are to be raised in one case. 12 13 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be summarily dismissed. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 15 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 16 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 18 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 19 See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 21 22 23 DATED: January 24, 2011 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
