(HC) Arciniega Calzada v. Warden

Opinion

EDMUNDO ARCINIEGA CALZADA, No. 2:23-cv-0612 DB P Petitioner, v. ORDER AND WARDEN, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has not, however, filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). In addition, examination of this action and the court’s records reveals that the petitioner is already proceeding with a petition for relief in the same matter. See Arciniega Calzada v. Warden, No. 2:23-cv-0599-EFB (E.D. Cal.). Respondent has been ordered to respond to the petition in that matter. See id. A suit is duplicative if the “claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp.2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Ridge Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 1210, 1213 (N.D. Ill. 1983)). “When a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another federal district court, the court has discretion to abate or dismiss the second action. Id. at 1144 (citation omitted). “Federal comity and judicial economy give rise to rules which allow a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a similar complaint has already been filed in another federal court.” Id. at 1145 (citation omitted). “[I]ncreasing calendar congestion in the federal courts makes it imperative to avoid concurrent litigation... whenever consistent with the right of the parties.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979). Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, this action should be dismissed and petitioner should proceed on the action initially commenced. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this case. In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows: 1. This action be dismissed as duplicative to Arciniega Calzada v. Warden, No. 2:23-cv- 0599-EFB (E.D. Cal.). 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: June 6, 2023

DLB7 arci0612.dup.ft BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE