Opinion
CV 24-10260-KK (AGR)
12-03-2024
JAMES LEWIS APODACA, Petitioner, v. STEPHEN SMITH, Respondent.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF DUPLICATE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 1,2024, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Southern District of California in Apodaca v. Smith, CV 24-3027 KK (AGR) (“Apodaca I”). The petition in Apodaca I challenged a criminal judgment in the Superior Court for Ventura County, California, which is in the Central District of California. By Order dated April 8, 2024, the Southern District transferred the habeas proceeding to the Central District of California. (Apodaca I, Dkt. No. 3.)
In Apodaca I, Respondent filed an Answer and Return on August 28, 2024. (Apodaca I, Dkt. Nos. 15-16.)
The court, on its own motion, extended the time for Petitioner to file a reply in Apodaca I to November 14, 2024. (Dkt. No. 17.) Petitioner did not file a reply.
On November 7, 2024, Petitioner mailed a petition for writ of habeas corpus to the Southern District of California in Apodaca v. Smith, CV 24-10260 KK (AGR) (“Apodaca II”). The petition in Apodaca II is a duplicate copy of the petition in Apodaca I except that the petition in Apodaca II contains two copies of page 9 and a new proof of service. (Compare Apodaca II, Dkt. No. 1 with Apodaca I, Dkt. No. 1.) By Order dated November 25, 2024, the Southern District transferred the second habeas proceeding to the Central District of California. (Apodaca II, Dkt. No. 2.)
II.
DISCUSSION
“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 v. Cal. Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). “[I]n assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” Id. at 689.
The petition in Apodaca II is clearly a duplicate of the petition for writ of habeas corpus in Apodaca I, which is still pending in this court. The petition in Apodaca II is a duplicate copy of the petition in Apodaca I, including the same cross-outs, except that the petition in Apodaca II contains two copies of page 9 and a new proof of service. (Compare Apodaca II, Dkt. No. 1 with Apodaca I, Dkt. No. 1.) The petition in Apodaca II challenges the same criminal judgment in the Superior Court of Ventura County, California, asserts the same grounds for relief, names the same Respondent, and was signed and dated on the same day as the petition in Apodaca I. Therefore, this action is dismissed without prejudice as a duplicate action. Petitioner's grounds for relief will be adjudicated in Apodaca I.
III.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this habeas action is dismissed without prejudice as a duplicate of Apodaca I, CV 24-3027 KK (AGR). The Clerk is directed to close this case.