(HC) Mackey v. Harrington, No. 2:2010cv02802 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 1/20/2011 RECOMMENDING that ptnr's 1 , 7 petitions for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed and this case closed. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Mackey v. Harrington Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL E. MACKEY, 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS K. HARRINGTON, Respondent. 16 17 No. CIV S-10-2802-MCE-CMK-P / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2008 conviction from the 19 Solano County Superior Court. 20 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary 21 dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any 22 exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Generally, 23 a habeas petitioner is required to raise all colorable grounds for relief in his first petition. See 24 McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 860 (1994) (O’Connor, J., concurring), Habeas Corpus Rule 25 2(c). Under § 2244(b)(2), “[a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus 26 application . . . that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. . . .” unless one of 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 two circumstances, not relevant here, exist. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Where a petitioner is 2 proceeding pro se and files a new petition before the district court has adjudicated the petitioner’s 3 prior petition, the Ninth Circuit has directed that the court should construe the new petition as a 4 motion to amend the petition rather than as a “second or successive” petition. See Woods v. 5 Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2008). A review of the court’s own records1 reveals that petitioner has an active habeas 6 7 action currently proceeding, case Mackey v. Herrington, CIV S-10-2504-JAM-CMK P. Pursuant 8 to Woods then, the court should dismiss this action and file the petition under review in this 9 action as a motion to file an amended petition in the previously filed action. However, a review 10 of the two petitions filed in both actions reveals that the petitions are virtually identical. 11 Petitioner filed his original petition in case CIV S-10-2504-JAM-CMK P on July 8, 2010, and an 12 amended petition on November 22, 2010. Respondent in that case has filed an answer, and the 13 court is awaiting petitioner’s traverse to be filed, if he so chooses. As the petitions are virtually 14 identical, raising the same three basic claims, it does not appear to be appropriate to take the 15 amended petition filed in this action and file it as a motion to file a second amended petition in 16 the prior action. 17 If, however, petitioner’s intention was in fact to file a second amended petition in 18 his prior action, he may so inform the court in his objections to these findings and 19 recommendations. If that was petitioner’s intention, the court will address the issue in response 20 to his objections. 21 22 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s petitions for a writ of habeas corpus (Docs. 1, 7) be summarily dismissed and this case closed. 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 24 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 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). 2 1 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 3 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 4 See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 6 7 8 DATED: January 20, 2011 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
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.
