Cason v. Williams

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 30, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00662
• Status: Unknown

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