Nicolas Chilel Monson v. Jeremy Casey
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a petitioner who had previously obtained a bond hearing in a prior case. The court dismissed the petition as duplicative and closed the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the Petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE” | agree with court The court found the petition duplicative because it raised no new grounds and the petitioner had already received the relief (a bond hearing) sought in the prior case. Dismissing as duplicative is a standard procedural mechanism to prevent redundant litigation, and the finding that the petition provided 'no new information or grounds' supports the dismissal. |
Termination of Motion to Appoint Counsel“TERMINATES AS MOOT the Motion to Appoint Counsel [ECF No. 2]” | agree with court Because the underlying petition was dismissed, the motion for appointment of counsel became moot. This is a logical procedural consequence of the dismissal. |
The order itself: sound — The order relies on a specific district court case from the same district to support the dismissal of a duplicative petition. While the reasoning is brief, it correctly identifies that the new petition adds nothing to the prior case where the petitioner already obtained a bond hearing. The dismissal without prejudice is appropriate for a duplicative filing that does not present new legal or factual grounds.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICOLAS CHILEL MONSON, Case No.: 26cv4029-LL-DDL 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AS 13 v. DUPLICATIVE AND CLOSING CASE 14 JEREMY CASEY, 15 Respondent. [ECF No. 1] 16 17 18 Petitioner Nicolas Chilel Monson (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed a Petition 19 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Upon review, the 20 Court notes that Petitioner filed a prior Section 2241 petition in case No. 26-cv-3261-LL- 21 DDL. 22 In the prior petition, this Court found that Petitioner was entitled to a bond hearing 23 under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Chilel Monson v. Mullin, et al., No. 26-cv-3261-LL-DDL, 24 ECF No. 6. According to Respondent, Petitioner received a bond hearing on June 18, 2026. 25 ECF No. 3 at 2. 26 Petitioner filed this second habeas petition, again seeking to challenge his 27 immigration custody. ECF No. 1. Petitioner does not mention his prior petition or his bond 28 hearing in his renewed petition. See generally ECF No. 1. “A habeas petition is subject to 1 ||}summary dismissal when it is repetitive or duplicative.” Trevino Chautla v. Larose, No. 2 3:26-CV-3102-JES-VET, 2026 WL 1596187, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 2, 2026). The Petition 3 ||here provides no new information or grounds for relief that were not raised in the prior 4 || petition. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the Petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE and 5 || TERMINATES AS MOOT the Motion to Appoint Counsel [ECF No. 2]. 6 The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing this matter without prejudice 7 || and shall close the case file. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ||Dated: July 17, 2026 NO 10 Qe | 11 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28