(HC) Singh v. Macomber

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, No. 2:23-cv-02804-WBS-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JEFF MACOMBER, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. On August 13, 2024, the court granted petitioner 19 leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered respondent to respond to the petition within 60 20 days. ECF No. 9. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) and petitioner has filed 21 a motion for default judgment (ECF No. 16). Because it has come to the court’s attention that the 22 petition is duplicative of an earlier-filed petition also pending in this district, the undersigned 23 recommends that the court summarily dismiss this petition and direct the Clerk of Court to 24 terminate the pending motions and close the case. 25 In this case, petitioner raises six grounds for relief: (1) that he was wrongfully denied 26 work credit; (2) that he was convicted of a crime that is “not a crime”; (3) that his poor health 27 requires that his criminal conviction be dismissed or he be provided an alternative sentence; (4) 28 that the prosecutor failed to prove “any element of the corpus delicti”; (5) that he was wrongfully 1 |} denied credit for class attendance; and (6) that his charges should be reduced to misdemeanors. 2 || ECF No. 1. Petitioner raises the precise six claims in the petition filed in Eastern District Case 3 || No. 2:23-cv-02423-AC (ECF No. 1). Donaldson v. Hatton, No. EDCV 17-2242 RGK(JC), 2018 4 | USS. Dist. LEXIS 158408, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2018) (citation omitted) (“In cases in 5 || which a federal habeas petitioner already has pending a federal habeas petition pertaining to the 6 || same state court judgment in the same court, dismissal is appropriate because the maintenance of 7 || a duplicative action serves no legitimate purpose.”). Because the petition in this action is 8 | duplicative of the earlier filed Case No. 2:23-cv-02423-AC, this action should be dismissed as 9 || duplicative. 10 For those reasons, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this petition be dismissed and the 11 | Clerk of Court be directed to terminate the pending motions and close the case. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 14 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 15 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 16 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 17 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 18 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). or /, Ps 20 || Dated: November 13, 2024 Zot) ete TeLACL? EDMUND F. BRENNAN 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28