Woodward v. Speer

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 6, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-06052
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ROBERT WOODWARD, CASE NO. 3:24-cv-06052-RAJ-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 SCOTT SPEER, NOTING DATE: January 21, 2025 13 Respondent. 14 15 The District Court has referred this federal habeas action to United States Magistrate 16 Judge Grady J. Leupold. Petitioner Robert Woodward, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on 17 December 26, 2024, by filing a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1), a Proposed 18 Petition (Dkt. 1-2), and other Proposed Motions and Requests (Dkts. 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7). 19 Upon review, the undersigned recommends the instant action be DISMISSED without 20 prejudice as it is duplicative of another federal habeas action currently pending in this Court. It 21 is further recommended the IFP Motion (Dkt. 1) and all other Proposed Motions and Requests 22 (Dkts. 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7) be DENIED as moot. 23 Federal courts “retain broad powers to prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation.” 24 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain 1 two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and 2 against the same defendant.’” Adams v. Calif. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 3 2007) (citation omitted) (affirming the dismissal of a later-filed duplicative lawsuit). “After 4 weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a

5 duplicative later-filed action.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. Thus, a district court may dismiss an 6 action that is clearly duplicative of a pending, earlier-filed action. See e.g., Diaz v. Frauenheim, 7 No. 5:19-cv-01441-PA (GJS), 2020 WL 730849, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2020). 8 In his Proposed Petition, Petitioner challenges a life sentence arising out of a state court 9 conviction entered in State of Washington v. Robert Lucas Woodward, Superior Court of 10 Washington for Mason County Case No. 11-1-00088-5. Dkt. 1-2 at 2. Although the Proposed 11 Petition is styled as one filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the sole mechanism for obtaining 12 federal habeas relief by those in state confinement is a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 13 2254. Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[Section 2254] ‘is the 14 exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court

15 judgment, even when the petitioner is not challenging his underlying state court conviction.’”) 16 (quoting White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009–10 (9th Cir. 2004)). Thus, the Court construes 17 the Proposed Petition as one filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 Several months before he filed his Proposed Petition in this action, Petitioner initiated 19 two separate federal habeas actions challenging the same underlying state court conviction. See 20 Woodward v. Bennett, No. 3:24-cv-05442-BJR (W.D. Wash. filed Jun. 5, 2024); Woodward v. 21 Bennett, No. 3:24-cv-05540-JHC (W.D. Wash. filed Jul. 3, 2024). The second action was 22 dismissed as duplicative of the first. Woodward, No. 3:24-cv-05540-JHC at Dkt. 5, 6. And 23 currently pending in Petitioner’s first action is a recommendation of dismissal for failure to

24 exhaust state court remedies. Woodward, No. 3:24-cv-05442-BJR at Dkt. 26. If Petitioner 1 believes he has habeas claims that should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust, the proper 2 avenue for disputing this outcome is by filing objections to the pending Report and 3 Recommendation in his earlier-filed action, not by seeking a different outcome in this new 4 action.

5 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends the Proposed Petition (Dkt. 1-2) be DENIED 6 and this action be DISMISSED without prejudice because it is duplicative of an earlier-filed 7 habeas action that remains pending in this Court. Additionally, Petitioner’s IFP Motion (Dkt. 1) 8 and his other Proposed Motions and Requests (Dkts. 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7) should be DENIED 9 as moot. Finally, a certificate of appealability should be DENIED in this case. 10 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the parties 11 shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also Fed. 12 R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of 13 de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can result in a waiver of 14 those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda

15 v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time 16 limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on January 17 21, 2025, as noted in the caption. 18 Dated this 6th day of January, 2025. 19 A 20 21 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 22 23