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

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 18, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-01251
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6

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

8 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 9 v. HABEAS CORPUS AS DUPLICATIVE

10 WARDEN OF THE CALIFORNIA CITY DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 11 Respondents. 12

13 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 14 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 15 I. 16 DISCUSSION 17 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases1 requires preliminary review of a 18 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 19 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 20 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 21 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 22 Petitioner currently has two habeas petitions pending before this Court in Tung T.N. v. 23 Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01240-TLN-JDP,2 and the present case. “After weighing the equities of 24 the case, the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to 25

26 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 27 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 1 stay that action pending resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from 2 proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 3 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir.2007) overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 4 (2008). “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same 5 subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams, 487 6 F.3d at 688 (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir.1977) (en banc)). 7 In assessing whether a second action is duplicative of the first, the Court examines 8 whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are 9 the same. Adams, 487 F.3d at 689. First, the Court must examine whether the causes of action in 10 the two suits are identical pursuant to the transaction test, developed in the context of claim 11 preclusion. Id. Second, the Court determines whether the defendants are the same or in privity. 12 Privity includes an array of relationships which fit under the title of “virtual representation.” 13 Kourtis v. Cameron, 419 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir. 2005). “The necessary elements of virtual 14 representation are an identity of interests and adequate representation.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 691 15 (citing Kourtis, 419 F.3d at 996). “Additional features of a virtual representation relationship 16 include a close relationship, substantial participation, and tactical maneuvering.” Adams, 487 17 F.3d at 691 (quoting Kourtis, 419 F.3d at 996). 18 A plaintiff is required to bring at one time all of the claims against a party or privies 19 relating to the same transaction or event. Adams, 487 F.3d at 693. The Court has discretion to 20 dismiss a duplicative complaint with prejudice to prevent a plaintiff from “fragmenting a single 21 cause of action and litigating piecemeal the issues which could have been resolved in one 22 action.” Id. at 694 (quoting Flynn v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 418 F.2d 668, 668 (9th 23 Cir.1969) (per curiam)). 24 In both this case and in case number 1:26-cv-01240-TLN-JDP, Petitioner challenges his 25 continued detention with no significant likelihood that he will be removed in the reasonably 26 foreseeable future and Respondents’ third country removal policies. Generally, “where a new pro 27 se petition is filed before the adjudication of a prior petition is complete, the new petition should 1 | Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888-90 (9th Cir. 2008). However, here, the later-filed petition 2 | does not attempt to raise new claims. Therefore, construing the later-filed petition as a motion to 3 | amend would serve no purpose. Accordingly, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus 4 | should be dismissed as duplicative of the petition filed in Tung T.N. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv- 5 | 01240-TLN-JDP. 6 Il. 7 RECOMMENDATION 8 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 9 | habeas corpus be DISMISSED as duplicative. 10 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 11 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 12 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 13 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 14 | written objections with the Court, limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, including any 15 | exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 16 | Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the 17 | Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that 18 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 19 | Court’s order. Wilkerson _v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 20 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 23 | Dated: _ February 18, 2026 _ Oe STANLEY A. BOONE 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28