Socolov v. State Of Utah

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 19, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02327
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 OLEG SOCOLOV, Case No. 2:20-cv-02327-GMN-EJY

6 Petitioner, v. ORDER 7 STATE OF UTAH, 8 Respondent. 9 10 Pro se Petitioner Oleg Socolov, an immigration detainee, has filed a Petition for Writ of 11 Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) seeking review of his Utah criminal conviction.1 This habeas matter 12 is before the Court on initial review under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.2 For the 13 reasons stated below, Socolov’s petition is dismissed without prejudice as duplicative. 14 BACKGROUND3 15 Socolov, a native citizen of Moldova, brings the petition to challenge his 2020 conviction 16 in the Fifth District Court for Iron County, Utah, located in Cedar City (“Utah court”). The Utah 17 court convicted Socolov of multiple misdemeanor offenses following a bench trial. He was 18 immediately transferred to the custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) 19 division of the Department of Homeland Security and is currently detained at the Nevada Southern 20 Detention Center in Pahrump, Nevada. Socolov’s petition alleges the “possibility of actual 21 innocence” of the 2020 Utah conviction. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) He claims the Utah court abused its 22 discretion by considering certain evidence and his testimony proved sabotage and self-defense. 23 He asks this court to “review this case without exhaustion of Post-conviction [sic] relief,” vacate 24 1 Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee when filing the petition. (ECF No. 1-2.) 25 2 All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 26 3 This procedural history is derived from Socolov’s allegations and exhibits in this case as well as those he 27 filed in the earlier case: Socolov v. State of Utah, 2:20-cv-1881-JAD. This Court takes judicial notice of the proceedings in Socolov’s earlier case. See Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131–32 (9th 28 Cir. 2012). 1 his conviction, and terminate his probation. (Id.) 2 DISCUSSION 3 Under Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas petition and order a 4 response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Valdez v. 5 Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule requires courts to screen and dismiss 6 petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by 7 procedural defects. Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. 8 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). As a general matter, duplicative 9 litigation is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C § 1915. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 10 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming that duplicative litigation is “an independent ground for 11 dismissal”); Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F.2d 1421, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988). In determining whether 12 a later-filed action is duplicative, the court examines “whether the causes of action and relief 13 sought, as well as the parties or privities to the action, are the same.” Adams v. California, 487 14 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 15 (2008). Dismissal of a duplicative lawsuit “promotes judicial economy and the comprehensive 16 disposition of litigation.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 692–93. 17 Court records show that Socolov filed an identical petition in an earlier case, Socolov v. 18 State of Utah, 2:20-cv-1881-JAD-DJA, and that petition is currently pending before a different 19 district judge. The petition in this case is therefore duplicative of that already pending petition and 20 serves no legitimate purpose. Any claims Socolov wishes to pursue regarding his Utah conviction 21 must be asserted, if at all, via the petition in Case No. 2:20-cv-1881-JAD-DJA. The Court thus 22 dismisses the instant petition without prejudice as duplicative. 23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 24 1. Petitioner Oleg Socolov’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is 25 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as duplicative. 26 2. A certificate of appealability is DENIED, as jurists of reason would not find dismissal 27 of the petition to be debatable or wrong. 28 /// 1 3. The Clerk of Court is instructed to ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT, dismissing this action 2 without prejudice, and CLOSE THIS CASE.

3 DATED: January 20, 2021

4 ________________________________ 5 GLORIA M. NAVARRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28