Tung Thien Nguyen v. Warden of the California City Detention Facility, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TUNG THIEN NGUYEN, Case No. 1:26-cv-01251-KES-SAB-HC

Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF v. HABEAS CORPUS AS DUPLICATIVE

DETENTION FACILITY, et al., Respondents.

Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. I. DISCUSSION Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases1 requires preliminary review of a habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner currently has two habeas petitions pending before this Court in Tung T.N. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01240-TLN-JDP,2 and the present case. “After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to

1 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by” 28 U.S.C. § 2254.). 2 The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 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)). In assessing whether a second action is duplicative of the first, the Court examines whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same. Adams, 487 F.3d at 689. First, the Court must examine whether the causes of action in the two suits are identical pursuant to the transaction test, developed in the context of claim preclusion. Id. Second, the Court determines whether the defendants are the same or in privity. Privity includes an array of relationships which fit under the title of “virtual representation.” Kourtis v. Cameron, 419 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir. 2005). “The necessary elements of virtual representation are an identity of interests and adequate representation.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 691 (citing Kourtis, 419 F.3d at 996). “Additional features of a virtual representation relationship include a close relationship, substantial participation, and tactical maneuvering.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 691 (quoting Kourtis, 419 F.3d at 996). 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)). In both this case and in case number 1:26-cv-01240-TLN-JDP, Petitioner challenges his continued detention with no significant likelihood that he will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future and Respondents’ third country removal policies. Generally, “where a new pro se petition is filed before the adjudication of a prior petition is complete, the new petition should Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888-90 (9th Cir. 2008). However, here, the later-filed petition does not attempt to raise new claims. Therefore, construing the later-filed petition as a motion to amend would serve no purpose. Accordingly, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed as duplicative of the petition filed in Tung T.N. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv- 01240-TLN-JDP. Il. Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as duplicative. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court, limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, including any exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson _v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le Dated: _ February 18, 2026 _ Oe STANLEY A. BOONE United States Magistrate Judge