Francisco Millan Rivera v. Fereti Semaia, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. _5:26-cv-03855-JMS-SK Date July 16, 2026 Title Francisco Millan Rivera v. Fereti Semaia, et al. Page 1of1

Present: The Honorable _J. Michael Seabright, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Derek Davis Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present Proceedings: INCHAMBERS—ORDER A review of the Central District of California docket indicates that the same Petitioner, Francisco Rivera Millan (A208797747), already has a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition pending in the Central District. The first case was filed on June 15, 2026 as Francisco Rivera Millan v. Semaia et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-3310-VBF-SP, which is pending before District Judge Valerie B. Fairbank and Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. An answer and a reply have already been filed in that case. Although the present case (5:26-cv-03855 JMS-SK) has been docketed as Francisco Millan Rivera v. Semaia et al., the two petitions appear to be nearly identical and have the same Alien Registration Number (A208797747). Generally, plaintiffs 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), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008); see also Katz v. Gerardi, 655 F.3d 1212, 1217 (10th Cir. 2011 (“The rule against claim-splitting requires a plaintiff to assert all of its causes of action arising from a common set of facts in one lawsuit. By spreading claims around in multiple lawsuits[,] . . . parties waste ‘scarce judicial resources’ and undermine ‘the efficient and comprehensive disposition of cases.’”) (quoting Hartsel Springs Ranch of Colo., Inc. v. Bluegreen Corp., 296 F.3d 982, 985 (10th Cir. 2002)). “Sua sponte dismissal of an action duplicative of a parallel action already pending in another federal court is allowable as an exercise of wise judicial administration.” Clayton v. Dist. of Columbia, 36 F. Supp. 3d 91, 94 n.1 (D.D.C. 2014). Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by July 20, 2026, why this action (Case No. 5:26-cv-03855 JMS-SK) should not be dismissed without prejudice. Meanwhile, the requirement in the court’s order of July 13, 2026, of an answer by July 17, 2026 (with a corresponding reply three days thereafter), see ECF No. 11, is VACATED.

CV-90 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk DD