(HC) Smith v. Foulk, No. 2:2013cv02387 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/18/2013 ORDERING the Clerk shall (a) redesignate the 11/21/2013 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4 ) as an Order, and (b) withdraw the assignment of a district judge in this action; for the reasons stated in this court's 11/21/2013 order, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and the court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. CASE CLOSED. (cc: KJM)(Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES R. SMITH, 12 13 14 15 No. 13-cv-2387-KJN-P Petitioner, v. ORDER FRED FOULK, Warden, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 21, 2013, the undersigned granted 19 petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and recommended dismissal of this action 20 without prejudice. (ECF No. 4.) As the court explained (id. at 2): 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The court’s records reveal that petitioner filed a prior federal petition for writ of habeas corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in the instant case. See Smith v. McDonald, Case No. 2:09-cv-02967-MCE-GGH P. The previous petition was filed on October 23, 2009, and was denied on the merits by orders filed April 9, 2012, and March 8, 2013. (Id., ECF Nos. 51, 55.) Before petitioner can proceed with the instant petition, he must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Therefore, the instant petition must be dismissed without prejudice to its refiling should petitioner obtain such authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 1 1 Petitioner thereafter filed a notice of consent to proceed pursuant to the jurisdiction of the 2 undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes. (ECF No. 5.) 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Local Rule 3 305(a). Petitioner did not file objections to the findings and recommendations, and there is no 4 basis for modifying the undersigned’s prior conclusion that this action should be dismissed. 5 For these reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The Clerk of Court shall: (a) redesignate the undersigned’s findings and 7 recommendations filed November 21, 2013 (ECF No. 4) as an Order; and (b) withdraw the 8 assignment of a district judge in this action; 2. For the reasons stated in this court’s order filed November 21, 2013, this action is 9 10 dismissed without prejudice; and 11 12 13 14 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 18, 2013 15 16 /smit2387.kjnjo 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
