UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 20, 2011
MATTHEW CATE, WARDEN,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.
REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Petitioner has no funds on account at the California correctional institution in which he is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.
In his Petition, Thornton challenges the requirement that he register as a sex offender in the state of California as a condition of parole, based on an underlying conviction suffered in the state of Tennessee. (See Pet. at 5-10.) Petitioner already has a petition for habeas corpus pending before this Court in which he challenges the Tennessee conviction and the California requirement that he register as a sex offender. (See Thornton v. Strainer, 11cv0190 LAB (JMA).) In that case, the Court has ordered a response to the petition, due no later than August 30, 2011. (See id., ECF No. 6.) The Court may dismiss a duplicative petition as frivolous if it "merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims." Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Because the current Petition merely repeats claims already raised in Case Number 11cv0190 LAB (JMA), the Petition is dismissed as duplicative.
Based on the foregoing, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice as duplicative.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.