Hunt v. Cale

Full title: STONEY LYNN HUNT, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW CALE, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jun 15, 2009

CIV S-09-1579 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2009)

Opinion

STONEY LYNN HUNT, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW CALE, Respondent. No. CIV S-09-1579 GGH P. United States District Court, E.D. California. June 15, 2009

          ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

         In considering whether to dismiss an action as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(d), the court has especially broad discretion. Conway v. Fugge , 439 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir. 1971). The Ninth Circuit has held that an action is frivolous if it lacks arguable substance in law and fact. Franklin v. Murphy , 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court's determination of whether a complaint or claim is frivolous is based on "'an assessment of the substance of the claim presented, i.e., is there a factual and legal basis, of constitutional dimension, for the asserted wrong, however inartfully pleaded.'" Franklin , 745 F.2d at 1227 (citations omitted).

         Petitioner's petition was filed with the court on June 8, 2009. The court's own records reveal that on June 4, 2009, petitioner filed a petition containing virtually identical allegations against the same respondents. (No. Civ. S-09-1540 EFB P).¹ Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court finds it frivolous and, therefore, will dismiss the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman , 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson , 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this action; and

         IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

         These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." 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).