John Doe v. Warden, et al.; John Doe v. Warden of California City Detention Facility, et al.

E.D. California

John Doe v. Warden, et al.; John Doe v. Warden of California City Detention Facility, et al.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 1, 2026·No. 1:26-cv-04841·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DOE, Case No. 2:26-cv-01215-KES-SAB-HC

Petitioner, ORDER REGARDING MULTIPLE PENDING PETITIONS AND DIRECTING v. PETITIONER TO NOTIFY COURT REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF WARDEN, et al., EARLIER-FILED PRO SE PETITION

Respondents.

JOHN DOE, Case No. 1:26-cv-04841-KES-SAB-HC Petitioner, v. DETENTION FACILITY, et al., Respondents. Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding with petitions for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has two habeas petitions pending before this Court in the above-captioned cases. Petitioner is proceeding pro se in the earlier-filed matter and is represented by counsel in the later-filed action. “After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). “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, 487 F.3d at 688 (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir.1977) (en banc)). A plaintiff is required to bring at one time all of the claims against a party or privies relating to the same transaction or event. Adams, 487 F.3d at 693. The Court has discretion to dismiss a duplicative complaint with prejudice to prevent a plaintiff from “fragmenting a single cause of action and litigating piecemeal the issues which could have been resolved in one action.” Id. at 694 (quoting Flynn v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 418 F.2d 668, 668 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam)). Accordingly, within SEVEN (7) days of the date of service of this order, Petitioner is DIRECTED to notify the Court regarding whether he wishes to withdraw his earlier-filed pro se petition IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le Dated: _ July 1, 2026 STANLEY A. BOONE United States Magistrate Judge .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DOE, Case No. 2:26-cv-01215-KES-SAB-HC

Petitioner, ORDER REGARDING MULTIPLE PENDING PETITIONS AND DIRECTING v. PETITIONER TO NOTIFY COURT REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF WARDEN, et al., EARLIER-FILED PRO SE PETITION

Respondents.

JOHN DOE, Case No. 1:26-cv-04841-KES-SAB-HC Petitioner, v. DETENTION FACILITY, et al., Respondents. Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding with petitions for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has two habeas petitions pending before this Court in the above-captioned cases. Petitioner is proceeding pro se in the earlier-filed matter and is represented by counsel in the later-filed action. “After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). “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, 487 F.3d at 688 (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir.1977) (en banc)). A plaintiff is required to bring at one time all of the claims against a party or privies relating to the same transaction or event. Adams, 487 F.3d at 693. The Court has discretion to dismiss a duplicative complaint with prejudice to prevent a plaintiff from “fragmenting a single cause of action and litigating piecemeal the issues which could have been resolved in one action.” Id. at 694 (quoting Flynn v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 418 F.2d 668, 668 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam)). Accordingly, within SEVEN (7) days of the date of service of this order, Petitioner is DIRECTED to notify the Court regarding whether he wishes to withdraw his earlier-filed pro se petition IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le Dated: _ July 1, 2026 STANLEY A. BOONE United States Magistrate Judge .

John Doe v. Warden, et al.; John Doe v. Warden of California City Detention Facility, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

John Doe v. Warden, et al.; John Doe v. Warden of California City Detention Facility, et al. (John Doe v. Warden, et al.; John Doe v. Warden of California City Detention Facility, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related