Opinion
No. 2:20-cv-01418-TLN-KJN
08-19-2020
MICHAEL SEAN KENNEDY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Michael Sean Kennedy's ("Petitioner") "Emergency Motion for a Stay of Removal and Request for an Expedited Hearing" (ECF No. 5) filed in connection with Petitioner's Emergency Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis (ECF No. 1). For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is DENIED as duplicative. (ECF No. 5.) / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing his Emergency Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis on July 10, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner concurrently filed the same document as a motion in his ongoing criminal case, USA v. Mysin et al. (Mysin), No. 2:11-cr-00427-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal. 2011), ECF No. 355. On August 11, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant Motion (ECF No. 5), which he also filed in his criminal case on the same date. Mysin, No. 2:11-cr-00427-TLN-CKD, ECF No. 359. On August 17, 2020, the Court ordered the Government to respond to Petitioner's motion as filed in the criminal matter. Id. at ECF No. 362.
The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are generally known or easily determinable from "sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned," such as court records. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004). --------
The two emergency motions are virtually identical. (See ECF No. 5); cf Mysin, No. 2:11-cr-00427-TLN-CKD, ECF No. 359. Petitioner's ongoing criminal case, which is already adjudicating these issues on the merits, thus renders the instant Motion duplicative. As such, the Court finds Petitioner's motion is more appropriately addressed in his ongoing criminal matter. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000) (federal courts "retain broad powers to prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation"); Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2015) (denying motion that was a duplicate of an earlier motion); see also Garza v. Unknown, No. 1:08-cv-01307 GSA, 2009 WL 197528 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2009) (dismissing habeas petition as duplicative); In re Flashcom, Inc., 647 F. App'x 689, 693 (9th Cir. 2016) (upholding sanctions for filing motions that duplicated one that was previously denied). Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED as duplicative. (ECF No. 5.)
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 19, 2020
/s/_________
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge