Opinion
Case No. 1:17-cv-00994-JLT (HC)
08-01-2017
MALCOLM COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. S. HATTON, Warden, Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION AS DUPLICATIVE AND SUCCESSIVE ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE [TEN DAY OBJECTION PERIOD]
On July 27, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition challenging his 1999 conviction for multiple sex offenses. Petitioner has filed a prior petition challenging the same conviction in Coleman v. Hatton, Case No. 1:17-cv-00940-SKO (HC). In that action, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response to the petition.
Review of the petitions filed in both actions reveals that the instant petition is duplicative of the prior petition. A federal court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same grounds as a prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1).
ORDER
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a District Judge to this case.
RECOMMENDATION
The Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be dismissed as duplicative and successive.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within ten days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 1 , 2017
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE