Cason v. Williams
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by a pro se prisoner who had already filed a parallel, duplicative habeas petition against the same respondent in a separate case number. The court dismissed the current action as duplicative and directed the petitioner to proceed in the previously filed case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action as duplicative“Accordingly, Petitioner’s action under Case No. 19-CV-0662 is DISMISSED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the well-established principle that a litigant cannot maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter, same parties, and same court simultaneously. The record establishes that the claims are substantially the same, the defendant is the same, and the prior action is pending and active. Dismissal is the appropriate remedy to prevent duplicative litigation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on binding Ninth Circuit authority (Barapind) and persuasive authority from other circuits to support the dismissal of a duplicative action. The factual findings regarding the parallel case are sufficient to support the conclusion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Michael Barrett Cason, Case No.: 3:19-CV-00662-GPC-BGS 11 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING 12 v. DUPLICATIVE ACTION. 13 Louis Williams, Warden, 14 Respondent. 15 16 On April 8, 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 17 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 1.) 18 Petitioner was denied leave to proceed IFP on April 10, 2019. (ECF No. 4.) Though 19 Petitioner has filed various changes of address and one document entitled “Notice to 20 Agent, Notice to Principle,” (ECF Nos. 5, 9, 11), he has not sought to proceed IFP again 21 in this matter, nor amended his Petition. 22 Instead, Petitioner has proceeded in a parallel, duplicative case. On March 29, 23 2019, Petitioner filed a preceding habeas petition pending before the Court. (Cason et al, 24 Case No. 19-CV-0621, ECF No. 1.) In that Petition, Petitioner alleges substantially the 25 same claims, albeit with more detail, as in this case. Petitioner, moreover, directs both 26 suits at the same Defendant, Warden Louis Williams. And, Petitioner has continued to 27 litigate that matter by, for example, filing another motion for IFP on October 3, 2019, 28 which the Court then granted on December 19, 2019. (ECF Nos. 10, 11.) 1 In light of the foregoing facts, the Court dismisses the above-captioned matter as 2 || duplicative. A litigant “ha[s] no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same 3 || subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” 4 || Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir.1977); see also Friends of the Earth, Inc. 5 || v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., 95 F.3d 358, 362 (Sth Cir.1996). “When a plaintiff 6 || files a second complaint alleging the same claim as a prior, pending, related action, the 7 ||second complaint may be dismissed.” Barapind vy. Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. 8 1999), aff'd, 225 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Zerilli v. Evening News Assn., 9 F.2d 217, 222 (D.C.Cir. 1980)). \ Accordingly, Petitioner’s action under Case No. 10 || 19-CV-0662 is DISMISSED. Petitioner may proceed to litigate his habeas petition in the 11 already-filed Case No. 19-CV-0621. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. <— 13 Dated: April 30, 2020 Carashe (A? 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28