Opinion
24-cv-13089
12-05-2024
AMANZE ANTOINE, Petitioner, v. ERIC RARDIN, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION AS DUPLICATIVE
Robert J. White United States District Judge
Amanze Antoine is confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan. He filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Antoine claims the Bureau of Prisons violated his rights by refusing to apply the time credits that he earned under the First Step Act and place him in prerelease custody.
Antoine already filed a habeas petition bringing the same challenge, in Antoine v. Rardin, Case No. 24-cv-12462. There is currently a filing fee deficiency in that case. (Case No. 24-cv-12462, ECF No. 4). The Court has not decided the merits.
“[A]s part of its inherent power to administer its docket, a district court may dismiss a suit that is duplicative of another federal court suit.” Sanders v. Washington, 582 F.Supp.3d 543, 547 (W.D. Mich. 2022); see also Smith v. SEC, 129 F.3d 356, 361 (6th Cir. 1997). “[S]imple dismissal of the second suit is [a] common disposition because plaintiffs have no right to maintain two actions on the same subject in the same court, against the same defendant at the same time.” Twaddle v. Diem, 200 Fed.Appx. 435, 438 (6th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted; alterations in original). Petitioner's current habeas petition is subject to dismissal as being duplicative of his still-pending first habeas petition because both cases seek the same relief against the same respondent. Id.; see also King v. Jackson-Mitchell, No. 22-3786, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 2594, at *2-3 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2023) (denying certificate of appealability where the district court dismissed habeas petition as duplicative).
The current petition challenges the same Bureau of Prisons decision denying Antoine's request to be placed in pre-release custody and raises the same legal arguments as the petition in Case No. 24-cv-12462. And this Court is permitted to take judicial notice of its own court documents and records in determining whether the current habeas petition is duplicative of the previously filed petition. See Attisha v. United States, No. 22-11755, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17103, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2024). The petition for a writ of habeas corpus must, therefore, be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is dismissed as duplicative of the habeas petition Antoine filed in Case No. 24-cv-12462.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file the pleadings in this case and a copy of this order in Case No. 24-cv-12462.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transfer the filing fee paid in this case to Case No. 24-cv-12462.