(HC) Thompson v. Spearman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KANE MICHAEL THOMPSON, No. 2:20-cv-0726 KJM DB P 11 Petitioner, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 M.E. SPEARMAN, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 17 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1) (“Thompson II”). The matter was referred to 18 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 A review of the petition filed in this action indicates that it is a virtual duplicate of the 20 petition earlier-filed in Thompson v. Spearman, 2:19-cv-2328 KJM DB P (“Thompson I”). 21 (Compare Thompson II, ECF No. 1, with Thompson I, ECF No. 1) (alleging same claims). For 22 this reason, the undersigned shall recommend that this action be dismissed as such. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED as 24 duplicative of Thompson v. Spearman, No. 2:19-cv-2328 KJM DB P. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after 27 being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections 28 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings wOAOe 2 EUV EEN INI RD OO PON vee OY ee 1 | and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 2 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 3 | (th Cir. 1991). 4 | Dated: October 1, 2020 5 6 4 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 | piB:13 DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.HABEAS/thom0726.dup.dsms.f&r 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28