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.

DecidedJuly 1, 2026

Docket1:26-cv-04841

StatusUnknown

This text of 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.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

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

12 Petitioner, ORDER REGARDING MULTIPLE PENDING PETITIONS AND DIRECTING 13 v. PETITIONER TO NOTIFY COURT REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF 14 WARDEN, et al., EARLIER-FILED PRO SE PETITION

15 Respondents.

17 JOHN DOE, Case No. 1:26-cv-04841-KES-SAB-HC 18 Petitioner, 19 v. 20 WARDEN OF CALIFORNIA CITY DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 21 Respondents. 22 23 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding with petitions for writ of habeas corpus 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 25 Petitioner has two habeas petitions pending before this Court in the above-captioned 26 cases. Petitioner is proceeding pro se in the earlier-filed matter and is represented by counsel in 27 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 1 | previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both 2 | actions.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on 3 | other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no 4 | right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the 5 | same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (quoting Walton v. Eaton 6 | Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir.1977) (en banc)). A plaintiff is required to bring at one time all of 7 | the claims against a party or privies relating to the same transaction or event. Adams, 487 F.3d at 8 | 693. The Court has discretion to dismiss a duplicative complaint with prejudice to prevent a 9 | plaintiff from “fragmenting a single cause of action and litigating piecemeal the issues which 10 | could have been resolved in one action.” Id. at 694 (quoting Flynn v. State Bd. of Chiropractic 11 | Exam’rs, 418 F.2d 668, 668 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam)). 12 Accordingly, within SEVEN (7) days of the date of service of this order, Petitioner is 13 | DIRECTED to notify the Court regarding whether he wishes to withdraw his earlier-filed pro se 14 | petition 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 17 | Dated: _ July 1, 2026 STANLEY A. BOONE 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 . 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

2 3 4 5 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

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

12 Petitioner, ORDER REGARDING MULTIPLE PENDING PETITIONS AND DIRECTING 13 v. PETITIONER TO NOTIFY COURT REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF 14 WARDEN, et al., EARLIER-FILED PRO SE PETITION

15 Respondents.

17 JOHN DOE, Case No. 1:26-cv-04841-KES-SAB-HC 18 Petitioner, 19 v. 20 WARDEN OF CALIFORNIA CITY DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 21 Respondents. 22 23 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding with petitions for writ of habeas corpus 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 25 Petitioner has two habeas petitions pending before this Court in the above-captioned 26 cases. Petitioner is proceeding pro se in the earlier-filed matter and is represented by counsel in 27 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 1 | previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both 2 | actions.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on 3 | other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no 4 | right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the 5 | same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (quoting Walton v. Eaton 6 | Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir.1977) (en banc)). A plaintiff is required to bring at one time all of 7 | the claims against a party or privies relating to the same transaction or event. Adams, 487 F.3d at 8 | 693. The Court has discretion to dismiss a duplicative complaint with prejudice to prevent a 9 | plaintiff from “fragmenting a single cause of action and litigating piecemeal the issues which 10 | could have been resolved in one action.” Id. at 694 (quoting Flynn v. State Bd. of Chiropractic 11 | Exam’rs, 418 F.2d 668, 668 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam)). 12 Accordingly, within SEVEN (7) days of the date of service of this order, Petitioner is 13 | DIRECTED to notify the Court regarding whether he wishes to withdraw his earlier-filed pro se 14 | petition 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 17 | Dated: _ July 1, 2026 STANLEY A. BOONE 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 . 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

John Doe v. Warden, et al.; John Doe v. Warden of California City Detention Facility, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-doe-v-warden-et-al-john-doe-v-warden-of-california-city-detention-caed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack