Prabjot Singh Dhillon v. Kristi Noem, in her Official Capacity, Secretary Department of Homeland Security, and Pamela Bondi, in her Official Capacity, Attorney General Department of Justice

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nebraska
DecidedMarch 13, 2026
Docket8:26-cv-00108
StatusUnknown

This text of Prabjot Singh Dhillon v. Kristi Noem, in her Official Capacity, Secretary Department of Homeland Security, and Pamela Bondi, in her Official Capacity, Attorney General Department of Justice (Prabjot Singh Dhillon v. Kristi Noem, in her Official Capacity, Secretary Department of Homeland Security, and Pamela Bondi, in her Official Capacity, Attorney General Department of Justice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Prabjot Singh Dhillon v. Kristi Noem, in her Official Capacity, Secretary Department of Homeland Security, and Pamela Bondi, in her Official Capacity, Attorney General Department of Justice, (D. Neb. 2026).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

PRABJOT SINGH DHILLON,

Petitioner,

vs. 8:26-CV-108 KRISTI NOEM, in her Official Capacity, Secretary Department of ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Homeland Security, and PAMELA BONDI, in her Official Capacity, Attorney General Department of Justice,

Respondents.

This case is identical to another, earlier-filed case that the petitioner has pending, No. 7:26-cv-5006, transferred here from the Southern District of Iowa. But, as a general policy, duplicative litigation in federal courts should be avoided. Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 259 F.3d 949, 953 (8th Cir. 2001) (citing Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)). Specifically, "a district court may, for reasons of wise judicial administration, dismiss one of two identical, pending actions." Id. at 953 (quotation omitted); see Parker v. Matthews, 71 F. App'x 613, 614 (8th Cir. 2003). A petitioner has 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. See id. Accordingly, the Court will order the petitioner to show cause why this case should not be dismissed in favor of the earlier-filed case. Cf. Anheuser- Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int'l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 n.3 (8th Cir. 1999); cf. also Parker, 71 F. App'x at 614. IT IS ORDERED:

1. On or before March 23, 2026, the petitioner shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative.

2. The petitioner's failure to comply with this show cause order may result in dismissal of this case without further notice.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall set a show cause deadline of March 28, 2026.

Dated this 13th day of March, 2026.

BY THE COURT:

hn M. Gerrard enior United States District Judge

-2-

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Prabjot Singh Dhillon v. Kristi Noem, in her Official Capacity, Secretary Department of Homeland Security, and Pamela Bondi, in her Official Capacity, Attorney General Department of Justice, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prabjot-singh-dhillon-v-kristi-noem-in-her-official-capacity-secretary-ned-2026.