Sulkhani Gamtenadze v. Warden

Opinion

1 2 3 4

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 No. 1:26-cv-01990-DAD-EFB (HC) 11 SULKHANI GAMTENADZE,

12 Petitioner, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, an immigration detainee, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent moves to dismiss or transfer the action due to the pendency of 19 another petition filed by petitioner in the Southern District of California while petitioner was 20 detained within that court’s jurisdiction, Gamtenadze v. LaRose, S.D. Cal. Case No. 3:26-cv- 21 1256-JES-SBC (Hereinafter “LaRose”). ECF No. 7. Petitioner, represented by appointed 22 counsel, opposes the motion and moves for leave to file an amended petition. ECF Nos. 8, 9. 23 “The first-to-file rule is a doctrine of federal comity that allows a district court to decline 24 jurisdiction over a subsequently filed action when a similar action is already pending in another 25 district. The rule’s purpose is to avoid placing an unnecessary burden on the federal judiciary and 26 to avoid the embarrassment of conflicting judgments.” Young v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 526 F. Supp. 27 3d 700, 704 (N.D. Cal. 2021). In deciding whether to dismiss a subsequently-filed action, the 28 court considers: (1) the chronology of suits, (2) the similarity of parties, and (3) the similarity of 1 issues. Id. The court has ample discretion in employing the rule and should “strive to maximinze 2 economy, consistency, and comity.” Id. 3 The chronology of suits, similarity of parties, and similarity of issues all favor dismissing 4 this action in favor of petitioner’s earlier-filed Southern District of California petition. However, 5 as petitioner persuasively argues, such an application of the first-to-file rule would elevate form 6 over substance. The action in the Southern District is on the cusp of dismissal for failure to file 7 an in forma pauperis application or pay the filing fee, and petitioner has informed his counsel that 8 he will not pursue Southern District case but does not know how to voluntarily dismiss it. A 9 review of the LaRose docket reveals no activity by petitioner since the filing of the petition and a 10 pending order that the case will be dismissed if petitioner fails to pay the filing fee or file an in 11 forma pauperis application by April 28, 2026. In this situation, dismissal or transfer of this action 12 would not serve comity, economy, or consistency. Additionally, allowing this case to continue 13 will not risk conflicting judgments. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss or transfer should be 14 denied. 15 Petitioner seeks leave to amend the petition. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, 16 “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The 17 policy of freely granting leave to amend should be applied with “extreme liberality.” DCD 18 Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). When determining whether to 19 grant leave to amend under Rule 15(a), a court should consider the following factors: (1) undue 20 delay; (2) bad faith; (3) futility of amendment; and (4) prejudice to the opposing party. Foman v. 21 Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). According to the Ninth Circuit, “the crucial factor is the 22 resulting prejudice to the opposing party.” Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 23 1973); Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003); DCD 24 Programs, 833 F.2d at 187. Granting or denying leave to amend rests in the sound discretion of 25 the trial court and will be reversed only for abuse of discretion. Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 26 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). 27 Petitioner argues that leave to amend should be granted so that the pro se petition can be 28 replaced “with a complete, lawyer-drafted petition that clearly identifies the proper respondents, 1 | organizes the factual allegations, cites the relevant exhibits, and states the statutory and 2 || constitutional claims in a form suitable for adjudication.” ECF No. 9. The court and the parties 3 || can only be assisted by such amendment. Accordingly, the motion to amend will be granted. 4 For the stated reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to file an 5 || amended petition (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED. The court accepts the amended petition (ECF No. 6 || 9-1) as the operative pleading. Respondent shall file a return or other response to the amended 7 || petition within seven days of the date of this order. 8 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to dismiss or transfer the action 9 || (ECF No. 7) be DENIED. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 11 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within seven days after 12 || being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 13 || the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 14 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 15 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 16 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 17 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 18 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 || Dated: April 27, 2026 Ss Yy Vi, / □ 4 iH A 20 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 31 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28