(HC) Taylor v. Superior Court of CA County of Sacramento ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT ANTHONY TAYLOR, No. 2:24-cv-02271-CKD 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COUNTY OF SACRMENTO, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his hit and run conviction from the Sacramento 19 County Superior Court. Court records reveal that petitioner is challenging this same conviction in 20 Taylor v. District Attorney, No. 2:24-cv-01400-DJC-SCR.1 21 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all 22 petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the 23 petitioner is not entitled to relief. Federal courts retain broad powers to control their dockets and 24 to “prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). 25 The court has conducted its preliminary review of the pending § 2254 petition and 26 27 1 The 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). 28 1 determined that it is duplicative of the earlier filed action in Taylor v. District Attorney, No. 2:24- 2 cv-01400-DJC-SCR. Due to its duplicative nature, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s 3 § 2254 application be dismissed without prejudice. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HERBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this 5 matter to a district court judge. 6 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. Petitioner’s habeas corpus application (ECF No. 1) be summarily dismissed as 8 duplicative of Taylor v. District Attorney, No. 2:24-cv-01400-DJC-SCR. 9 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 12 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 13 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 14 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner 15 may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of 16 the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district 17 court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 18 applicant). Where, as here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of 19 appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it 20 debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of 21 reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 22 constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. 23 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Any response to the objections shall be served and filed 24 within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 25 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 26 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 || Dated: October 18, 2024 ( WO h ft | / L, la a 2 CAROLYN DELANEY 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 | 12/ayl2271.F&R duplicative 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28