Lozano

(HC) Dixon v. Lozano

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 15, 20202:20-cv-00604California581 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL STEVE DIXON, No. 2:20-cv-00604 GGH P Petitioner, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

JARED R. LOZANO, Warden, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Petitioner challenges his 1981 conviction in the Sacramento County Superior Court for first-degree murder, robbery, and other related charges. ECF No. 1. 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 in 1988 and was denied on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.