Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robin Starr v. State of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 26, 2013

ROBIN STARR, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Allison Claire United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

The court's records reveal that petitioner has previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in this case. The previous application was filed on January 10, 2012, and was denied on the merits on December 5, 2012. See Starr v. State of California, No. 2:12-cv-0457 MCE KJN. Before petitioner can proceed with the instant application he must move in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Therefore, petitioner's application must be dismissed without prejudice to its refiling upon obtaining authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk randomly assign a district judge to this action; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 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).

20130226

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.