Francique Pouchon v. Christopher J. Larose, Warden

Opinion

FRANCIQUE POUCHON, Case No.: 26-cv-3881-RSH-JLB

Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden,

Respondent.

On July 6, 2026, petitioner Francique Pouchon filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 2241, provides that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A detainee bears the burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (the “Habeas Rules”) requires summary dismissal of a federal habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See also Habeas Rule 1(b) (permitting district courts to apply Habeas Rules to Section 2241 habeas proceedings); Lane v. Feather, 584 F. App’x 843, 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court’s application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss Section 2241 petition). This 1s Petitioner’s fourth habeas petition filed in recent months. See Case No. 26- cv-1126 (petition filed Feb. 20, 2026; petition granted and bond hearing ordered on Mar. 12, 2026); Case No. 26-cv-2304 (petition filed Apr. 15, 2026; dismissed on Apr. 16, 2026); Case No. 26-cv-2722 (petition filed Apr. 30, 2026). The third petition remains pending. Petitioner’s fourth petition is duplicative of his third, and indeed, includes much of the }same language verbatim. A habeas petition is subject to summary dismissal when it is repetitive or duplicative. See, e.g., Salas v. Att’y Gen., No. 2:23-cv-1118-TL-TLF, 2023 WL 5826738, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 21, 2023). “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted) (affirming dismissal of a later-filed duplicative lawsuit). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition in the instant case without prejudice to Petitioner’s pursuit of relief in his other pending habeas case, No. 26-cv-2722. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Dated: July 8, 2026 C / □

Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge