CDCR

(HC) Ausborn v. CDCR

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 28, 20202:20-cv-01399California579 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RANDY AUSBORN, No. 2:20-cv-1399 DB P Petitioner, v. ORDER CDCR, 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). In his petition, petitioner challenges a December 2018 disciplinary conviction. (See ECF No. 1 at 5, 16, 21.) Petitioner challenged the same disciplinary conviction in a previously-filed petition in this court – Ausborn v. CDCR, (“Ausborn I”) No. 2:20-cv-0181 KJM DB P. Upon screening the petition in Ausborn I, the court found it likely petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies because he had not presented his claim regarding his…

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.