(HC) Starr v. State of California, et al, No. 2:2013cv00006 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/26/13 ORDERING that the Clerk randomly assign a district judge to this action; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed withoutprejudice. Randomly assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
(HC) Starr v. State of California, et al Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROBIN STARR, Petitioner, 11 12 13 vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ORDER AND Respondents. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 16 17 No. 2:13-cv-0006 AC P habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court’s records reveal that petitioner has previously filed an application for a 18 19 writ of habeas corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in this case. The 20 previous application was filed on January 10, 2012, and was denied on the merits on December 21 5, 2012. See Starr v. State of California, No. 2:12-cv-0457 MCE KJN. Before petitioner can 22 proceed with the instant application he must move in the United States Court of Appeals for the 23 Ninth Circuit for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 2244(b)(3). Therefore, petitioner's application must be dismissed without prejudice to its 25 refiling upon obtaining authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 26 Circuit. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk randomly assign a district judge to this action; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 3 4 prejudice. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 5 6 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 7 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 8 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 9 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 10 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 11 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 DATED: February 26, 2013. 13 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 AC:rb 17 star0006.success 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.