Edward Noel Thomas v. Christian Pfeiffer

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-06950-MCS-KES Date: August 5, 2025

Title: EDWARD NOEL THOMAS v. CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden

PRESENT:

THE HONORABLE KAREN E. SCOTT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Jazmin Dorado Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): Order for Petitioner to Show Cause Why This Petition Should Not Be Dismissed as Duplicative

I. BACKGROUND Edward Noel Thomas (“Petitioner”) originally filed this habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in June 2024. (Dkt. 1.) It was originally assigned Eastern District case number 2:24-cv-1691-CSK-HC. (Id.) On June 21, 2024, the Eastern District granted Petitioner in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. (Dkt. 5.) In July 2024, the case was assigned to a different judge in the Eastern District. (Dkt. 7.) The petition was pending in the Eastern District for about a year without further action by that Court. Meanwhile, in August 2024, Petitioner filed a new habeas petition in the Eastern District, which was assigned to a different judge and assigned Eastern District case number 1:24-cv- 00924-SKO-HC. A few days later, the Eastern District judge assigned to that case transferred the petition to this Court (the Central District). The petition was given a new, Central District case number, 2:24-cv-06816-MCS-KES. This Court ordered the government to respond to the petition and, in January 2025, stayed the petition under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), to wait until the California Supreme Court rules on Petitioner’s pending state habeas petition. Thomas v. Horn, No. 2:24-cv-06816-MCS-KES (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2025), Dkt. 25. As of the date of this order, the California Supreme Court petition is still pending. Thomas on Habeas Corpus, No. S286445, docket available at: https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/. CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-06950-MCS-KES Date: August 5, 2025 Page 2

Meanwhile, on July 28, 2025, the Eastern District took action on the older habeas petition and transferred it to this Court. (Dkt. 10.) It was assigned Central District case number 2:25-cv- 06950-MCS-KES. II. DISCUSSION “District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets….” Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007). If courts find a case to be duplicative of another case, they may dismiss one of the cases, stay one of the cases pending resolution of the other, or consolidate the cases. Id. In assessing whether the cases are duplicative, courts “examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” Id. at 689. The habeas petition filed in this case (Central District case no. 2:25-cv-06950-MCS-KES) and Petitioner’s other habeas petition in this district (Central District Case no. 2:24-cv-06816- MCS-KES) appear to challenge the same criminal convictions and 2023 resentencing proceedings, and they appear to raise similar or identical claims. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, on or before September 4, 2025, Petitioner shall do one of the following: 1. If Petitioner agrees that this petition (case no. 2:25-cv-06950-MCS-KES) is duplicative of the other petition (case no. 2:24-cv-06816-MCS-KES), then he may sign and return the notice of voluntary dismissal attached to this order. By doing so, he will dismiss case no. 2:25-cv-06950-MCS-KES but case no. 2:24-cv- 06816-MCS-KES will continue. 2. If Petitioner does not agree that this petition is duplicative, he should file a memo of law explaining (a) what is different about this petition, and (b) why he believes both petitions should be pending at the same time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s notice issued on July 29, 2025 is vacated. That notice stated that Petitioner needed to either pay the filing fee or apply for IFP status. As noted above, the Eastern District already granted Petitioner IFP status in this case in June 2024. (Dkt. 5.) He therefore does not need to pay the filing fee or re-apply for IFP status.

Initials of Deputy Clerk jd UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NUMBER EDWARD NOEL THOMAS, 2:25-cv-06950-MCS-KES Petitioner(s), v.

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL CHRISTINA PFEIFFER, Warden, PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(1) Respondent(s). PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: (Check one) G4 This action is dismissed by the Petitioner in its entirety. G ONLY Ground(s) is/are dismissed by Petitioner in its/their entirety. G ONLY Respondent(s) is/are dismissed. The dismissal is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Date Signature of Petitioner NOTE: F.R.Civ.P. 41(a): This notice may be filed at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment, whichever first occurs.