Opinion
Case No. 1:20-cv-00579-NONE-SKO (HC)
05-04-2020
TRAVIS JUSTIN CUELLAR, Petitioner, v. BROOK BERGMAN, Madera County District Attorney, Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION AS DUPLICATIVE AND SUCCESSIVE [TEN DAY OBJECTION PERIOD]
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He filed the instant action on April 23, 2020, as a civil rights complaint. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner's allegations relate entirely to his conviction in a state court criminal case, including the prosecutor's alleged facilitating of "eavesdropping by sending a prosecuting agent to eav[e]sdrop on a private attorney-client meeting in an in custody holding area in the Madera Superior Courthouse." (Id. at 5.) Petitioner alleges that this eavesdropping resulted in Respondent "obtain[ing] incriminating information, resulting in a conviction of Petitioner." (Id.) Further, Petitioner requests that the Court "consider the plaintiff's sentence time served based on the constitutional violations suffered" and "reverse conviction and/or dismiss charges." (Id.) Because Petitioner's claims sound in habeas, the complaint was redesignated as a habeas action on April 29, 2020. (Doc. 3.)
Petitioner filed a prior habeas action challenging the same conviction and raising the same complaints in Cuellar v. People of the State of California, Case No. 20-cv-00427-AWI-SKO. In that action, the Court has recommended the petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies (Doc. 4.) Because the instant petition is duplicative and successive of the prior petition, this action must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1).
RECOMMENDATION
The Court HEREBY 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: May 4 , 2020
/s/ Sheila K . Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE