Anmol Singh v. Sergio Albarran, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ANMOL SINGH, No. 1:26-cv-00552 DC CSK 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SERGIO ALBARRAN, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding through counsel, filed a petition for a writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On February 10, 2026, respondents filed a 19 motion to dismiss alleging that petitioner is already pursuing habeas relief in Singh v. Warden of 20 Golden State Annex Detention Facility, No. 1:26-cv-00207 JLT EPG (E.D. Cal.). (ECF No. 11 at 21 1.) Petitioner did not file an opposition. 22 The instant petition was filed with the court on January 22, 2026. As alleged by 23 respondent, this court’s own records confirm that on January 12, 2026, petitioner filed a petition 24 containing virtually identical allegations. (No. 1:26-cv-00207 JLT EPG).1 Due to the duplicative 25 nature of the present action, respondent’s motion should be granted, and this case be dismissed. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 27 1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 28 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). ] 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) be granted. 2 2. This action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 3 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within seven days of 6 || the date of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 7 || court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 8 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be 9 || filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that 10 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 11 || Court’s order. See Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 13 || Dated: March 9, 2026 4 CA Spo | CHI SOO KIM 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 Sing552.23.imm/2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28