Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
10 COREY D. DUNN,
12 vs.
13 USA, et al.,
15 /
17 charges pending in this court in Case No. CR 05-0453 WBS1, has filed an application for habeas
18 corpus relief on a California state court form application for a writ of habeas corpus.2 Petitioner
19 has paid the filing fee of $5.00 for a habeas corpus action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).
20 /////
21
22 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).
23
2
Petitioner’s address of record is the Stanislaus County Public Safety Center in Modesto,
24 California. Records in petitioner’s federal criminal case indicate that petitioner has been returned
to San Quentin State Prison. Good cause appearing, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to serve
25 a copy of this order and findings and recommendations on petitioner at both places. Petitioner is
cautioned that he is required to keep the court informed of his current address. See Local Rule 83-
26 182(f).
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-01659-MCE-EFB Document 9 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 2 of 3
1 After further review of the record and good cause appearing, the court’s order
2 filed August 22, 2006, directing respondents to file an answer will be vacated, as will the court’s
3 order filed August 24, 2006, ordering intradistrict transfer of this matter to the Fresno Division of
4 this Court.
5 It appears from the allegations of the application at bar that petitioner’s claims are
6 directed at the pending federal criminal prosecution. The proper forum for petitioner’s claims at
7 this stage is in the pending criminal action, not in a separate habeas action. See generally
8 Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(a). Petitioner’s collateral challenge is premature. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See
9 also Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 716 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting
10 in part) (citations omitted) (Habeas jurisdiction extends “to federal claims for which an
11 opportunity for full and fair litigation has already been provided in state or federal court ....”) For
12 the foregoing reasons, the court will recommend dismissal of this action.
14 1. The court’s order filed August 22, 2006, directing respondents to file an
15 answer is vacated.
16 2. The court’s order filed August 24, 2006, ordering intradistrict transfer of this
17 case to Fresno Division of this Court is vacated. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed
18 to reopen Case No. S-06- 1659 MCE PAN P and close Case No. F-06-1130 OWW SMS.
19 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on petitioner at
20 his address of record and at San Quentin State Prison, San Quentin, CA 94964; and
22 prejudice.
23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
24 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty
25 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
26 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
2
Case 2:06-cv-01659-MCE-EFB Document 9 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 3 of 3
1 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the
2 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
8 14/dunn1659.fr
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26