1 2
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 CHRISTIAN DIAZ, Case No. 5:19-cv-01441-PA (GJS) 12 Petitioner ORDER: DISMISSING 13 v. DUPLICATIVE ACTION; AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF 14 SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. 16 17 On July 31, 2019, the Clerk’s Office filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition 18 submitted by Petitioner and assigned it Case No. 5:19-cv-01408-PA (MAA) (the 19 “First-Filed Action”). The petition in the First-Filed Action indicated that Petitioner 20 had submitted it to prison authorities for mailing on July 24, 2019, and that the 21 Clerk’s Office had received it on July 29, 2019. 22 On July 24, 2019, by separate envelope, Petitioner mailed a copy of the First- 23 Filed Action petition to this District, which the Clerk’s Office also received on July 24 29, 2019. Rather than treat this mailing as an extra copy of the petition already filed 25 in the First-Filed Action, the Clerk’s Office initiated a separate, new action and 26 assigned it Case No. 5:19-cv-01415-PA (GJS) (“Second-Filed Action”). Thus, as of 27 July 31, 2019, Petitioner had two virtually identical Section 2254 habeas actions 28 1 2 Before the above two habeas cases commenced, on or about July 18, 2019, 3 Petitioner mailed a letter to the Clerk of this District, in which he requested a 4 prospective extension of the statute of limitations for his – at that time – not-yet 5 filed Section 2254 habeas petition. The Clerk’s Office received that letter on July 6 23, 2019, before the First-Filed and Second-Filed Action petitions had been received 7 in the mail. For reasons unclear to the Court, the Clerk’s Office did not take action 8 on the letter at that time. Instead, after the First-Filed and Second-Filed Actions had 9 been docketed and commenced, the Clerk’s Office, on August 2, 2019, generated a 10 third case by assigning a new case number and filing and docketing the January 18, 11 2019 letter as a pleading initiating a separate Section 2254 habeas case, namely, the 12 instant action, Case No. 5:19-cv-01441-PA (GJS).2 13 On August 6, 2019, in the two Section 2254 cases pending before her, United 14 States Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish issued an Order To Show Cause Re: 15 Possible Dismissal for Untimeliness. [Dkt 3, this action; Dkt. 4, Second-Filed 16 Action.] On September 9, 2019, Petitioner filed a Response. [Dkt. 4, this action; 17 Dkt. 5, Second-Filed Action.] 18 Thus, as of August 2, 2019, Petitioner had three separate Section 2254 habeas 19 actions pending in this District that all challenged the same state conviction (a 2013 20 conviction in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. FVA700187). In 21 two of those, a potential untimeliness problem had been flagged with respect to 22 Petitioner’s desired habeas challenge to this state conviction. In the other, the First- 23 Filed Action, on September 20, 2019, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the 24
25 1 The petition docketed in the First-Filed Action is missing a page contained in the petition docketed in the Second-Filed Action. Thus, the Second-Filed Action more correctly reflects the 26 petition that Petitioner wishes to pursue.
27 2 At that point in time, the letter, instead, should have been filed in either or both of the two 28 concurrently-filed pending Section 2254 cases, rather than been treated as, in effect, a separate habeas petition warranting a separate case number. 1 2 in which the timeliness issue already had been briefed and was proceeding to 3 consideration. Petitioner did not oppose that motion. On November 12, 2019, the 4 Court dismissed the First-Filed Action without prejudice to Petitioner’s pursuit of 5 the duplicative Second-Filed Action. [Dkt. 10, First-Filed Action.] Even though he 6 did not oppose the motion to dismiss and has not identified any reason why he 7 should be allowed to pursue wholly duplicative actions at the same time, Petitioner 8 has appealed that November 12, 2019 Order. [Dkt. 13, First-Filed Action.] 9 The Second-Filed Action is proceeding, and the timeliness issue will be resolved 10 either in Petitioner’s favor – in which case the claims alleged in the petition filed in 11 that case will proceed to a merits consideration – or against Petitioner. In either 12 event, there is no reason for the letter filed in this action to proceed as a separate 13 Section 2254 habeas action, particularly given that the letter does not constitute an 14 actual habeas petition and, at the time it was submitted, simply sought a prospective 15 extension of the limitations period before Petitioner could file his Section 2254 16 habeas petition. He has done so now through the petition pending in the Second- 17 Filed Action, and the timeliness issue will be resolved therein, including the 18 questions of whether that petition was untimely and Petitioner should receive 19 equitable tolling based on any of the circumstances he alleges, both through the 20 instant letter and his Response to the Order To Show Cause. Indeed, in her Order 21 To Show Cause, Magistrate Judge Standish made clear that she had considered the 22 substance of the letter and its attachments, and these matters will continue to be 23 considered until the timeliness issue is resolved, as they are a part of the record. 24 The resources of the Court and the litigants before it are not endless and should 25 not be expended in a duplicative manner for no good reason. There is no tenable 26 reason for the Court to rule on what is a single timeliness issue twice, simply 27 because Petitioner’s submissions improperly were split into two separate cases when 28 they should have been filed and docketed as one. There also is no tenable reason for 1 2 attendant cost to him and duplication of effort) when a single filing in one case will 3 suffice. There simply is no legitimate reason why a Clerk’s Office error should 4 necessitate that parallel cases proceed based on a single Section 2254 habeas attack 5 on a single state court conviction, when that error can be corrected by allowing 6 Petitioner to proceed with a single case – the pending Second-Filed Action – which 7 will afford him the full opportunity for the consideration of his habeas petition. 8 Federal courts “retain broad powers to prevent duplicative or unnecessary 9 litigation.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000); see also Landis v. N. Am. 10 Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (every federal court has the inherent power “to 11 control disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 12 itself, for counsel, and for litigants”). “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to 13 maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in 14 the same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams v. Calif. Dep’t of Health 15 Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted) (affirming the 16 dismissal of a later-filed duplicative lawsuit). A plaintiff must bring one action 17 against a party or privies relating to the same transaction or event. Id. at 693. 18 “District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and ‘[i]n the exercise 19 of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . 20 dismissal.’” Id. at 688 (citation omitted). “After weighing the equities of the case, 21 the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed 22 action.” Id.; see also M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist., 681 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 CHRISTIAN DIAZ, Case No. 5:19-cv-01441-PA (GJS) 12 Petitioner ORDER: DISMISSING 13 v. DUPLICATIVE ACTION; AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF 14 SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. 16 17 On July 31, 2019, the Clerk’s Office filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition 18 submitted by Petitioner and assigned it Case No. 5:19-cv-01408-PA (MAA) (the 19 “First-Filed Action”). The petition in the First-Filed Action indicated that Petitioner 20 had submitted it to prison authorities for mailing on July 24, 2019, and that the 21 Clerk’s Office had received it on July 29, 2019. 22 On July 24, 2019, by separate envelope, Petitioner mailed a copy of the First- 23 Filed Action petition to this District, which the Clerk’s Office also received on July 24 29, 2019. Rather than treat this mailing as an extra copy of the petition already filed 25 in the First-Filed Action, the Clerk’s Office initiated a separate, new action and 26 assigned it Case No. 5:19-cv-01415-PA (GJS) (“Second-Filed Action”). Thus, as of 27 July 31, 2019, Petitioner had two virtually identical Section 2254 habeas actions 28 1 2 Before the above two habeas cases commenced, on or about July 18, 2019, 3 Petitioner mailed a letter to the Clerk of this District, in which he requested a 4 prospective extension of the statute of limitations for his – at that time – not-yet 5 filed Section 2254 habeas petition. The Clerk’s Office received that letter on July 6 23, 2019, before the First-Filed and Second-Filed Action petitions had been received 7 in the mail. For reasons unclear to the Court, the Clerk’s Office did not take action 8 on the letter at that time. Instead, after the First-Filed and Second-Filed Actions had 9 been docketed and commenced, the Clerk’s Office, on August 2, 2019, generated a 10 third case by assigning a new case number and filing and docketing the January 18, 11 2019 letter as a pleading initiating a separate Section 2254 habeas case, namely, the 12 instant action, Case No. 5:19-cv-01441-PA (GJS).2 13 On August 6, 2019, in the two Section 2254 cases pending before her, United 14 States Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish issued an Order To Show Cause Re: 15 Possible Dismissal for Untimeliness. [Dkt 3, this action; Dkt. 4, Second-Filed 16 Action.] On September 9, 2019, Petitioner filed a Response. [Dkt. 4, this action; 17 Dkt. 5, Second-Filed Action.] 18 Thus, as of August 2, 2019, Petitioner had three separate Section 2254 habeas 19 actions pending in this District that all challenged the same state conviction (a 2013 20 conviction in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. FVA700187). In 21 two of those, a potential untimeliness problem had been flagged with respect to 22 Petitioner’s desired habeas challenge to this state conviction. In the other, the First- 23 Filed Action, on September 20, 2019, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the 24
25 1 The petition docketed in the First-Filed Action is missing a page contained in the petition docketed in the Second-Filed Action. Thus, the Second-Filed Action more correctly reflects the 26 petition that Petitioner wishes to pursue.
27 2 At that point in time, the letter, instead, should have been filed in either or both of the two 28 concurrently-filed pending Section 2254 cases, rather than been treated as, in effect, a separate habeas petition warranting a separate case number. 1 2 in which the timeliness issue already had been briefed and was proceeding to 3 consideration. Petitioner did not oppose that motion. On November 12, 2019, the 4 Court dismissed the First-Filed Action without prejudice to Petitioner’s pursuit of 5 the duplicative Second-Filed Action. [Dkt. 10, First-Filed Action.] Even though he 6 did not oppose the motion to dismiss and has not identified any reason why he 7 should be allowed to pursue wholly duplicative actions at the same time, Petitioner 8 has appealed that November 12, 2019 Order. [Dkt. 13, First-Filed Action.] 9 The Second-Filed Action is proceeding, and the timeliness issue will be resolved 10 either in Petitioner’s favor – in which case the claims alleged in the petition filed in 11 that case will proceed to a merits consideration – or against Petitioner. In either 12 event, there is no reason for the letter filed in this action to proceed as a separate 13 Section 2254 habeas action, particularly given that the letter does not constitute an 14 actual habeas petition and, at the time it was submitted, simply sought a prospective 15 extension of the limitations period before Petitioner could file his Section 2254 16 habeas petition. He has done so now through the petition pending in the Second- 17 Filed Action, and the timeliness issue will be resolved therein, including the 18 questions of whether that petition was untimely and Petitioner should receive 19 equitable tolling based on any of the circumstances he alleges, both through the 20 instant letter and his Response to the Order To Show Cause. Indeed, in her Order 21 To Show Cause, Magistrate Judge Standish made clear that she had considered the 22 substance of the letter and its attachments, and these matters will continue to be 23 considered until the timeliness issue is resolved, as they are a part of the record. 24 The resources of the Court and the litigants before it are not endless and should 25 not be expended in a duplicative manner for no good reason. There is no tenable 26 reason for the Court to rule on what is a single timeliness issue twice, simply 27 because Petitioner’s submissions improperly were split into two separate cases when 28 they should have been filed and docketed as one. There also is no tenable reason for 1 2 attendant cost to him and duplication of effort) when a single filing in one case will 3 suffice. There simply is no legitimate reason why a Clerk’s Office error should 4 necessitate that parallel cases proceed based on a single Section 2254 habeas attack 5 on a single state court conviction, when that error can be corrected by allowing 6 Petitioner to proceed with a single case – the pending Second-Filed Action – which 7 will afford him the full opportunity for the consideration of his habeas petition. 8 Federal courts “retain broad powers to prevent duplicative or unnecessary 9 litigation.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000); see also Landis v. N. Am. 10 Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (every federal court has the inherent power “to 11 control disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 12 itself, for counsel, and for litigants”). “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to 13 maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in 14 the same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams v. Calif. Dep’t of Health 15 Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted) (affirming the 16 dismissal of a later-filed duplicative lawsuit). A plaintiff must bring one action 17 against a party or privies relating to the same transaction or event. Id. at 693. 18 “District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and ‘[i]n the exercise 19 of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . 20 dismissal.’” Id. at 688 (citation omitted). “After weighing the equities of the case, 21 the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed 22 action.” Id.; see also M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist., 681 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir. 23 2012) (“a district court has broad discretion to control its own docket, and that 24 includes the power to dismiss duplicative claims”); Shappell v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 25 No. 10-cv-03020-MCE-EFB, 2011 WL 2070405, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2011) 26 (dismissing second of two separate, but identical, actions, observing that “[t]he 27 inherent power to manage the Court’s own docket permits it to order dismissal of 28 duplicative claims in order to foster judicial economy and the ‘comprehensive 1 || disposal of litigation’”’) (citation omitted). The fact that a district court has 2 || identified defects in a first-filed action does not give a litigant the right to file a 3 || second lawsuit based upon the same facts. Adams, 487 F.3d at 688; see also Garza 4 || v. Unknown, No. 1:08-cv-01307 GSA, 2009 WL 197528 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2009) 5 || (dismissing habeas petition on the ground it was duplicative when it sought to 6 || challenge same conviction challenged by earlier petitions that had been dismissed 7 || for failure to state a claim). 8 There is no justification for allowing two separate cases to proceed based on 9 || what plainly is a single Section 2254 attack on Petitioner’s state court conviction. In 10 || the interests of judicial economy, this action will be dismissed on the ground that it 11 || 1s duplicative of the parties and claims and matters at issue in the First-Filed Action. 12 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: this action is dismissed, without prejudice, 13 || on the ground that it is duplicative of a pending action; and Judgment shall be 14 || entered dismissing this action without prejudice. 15 In addition, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 16 || the United States District Courts, the Court has considered whether a certificate of 17 || appealability is warranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 18 || 473, 484-85 (2000). The Court concludes that a certificate of appealability is 19 || unwarranted, and thus, a certificate of appealability 1s DENIED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 || DATED: February 12, 2020 | 7 □ 23 PERCY ANDERSON 24 UNITED S¥ATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 Presented by:
21 GAIL J. STANDISH 28 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE