Opinion
No. 2:17-cv-078-JRG-MCLC
07-23-2018
JASON B. BRYANT, Petitioner, v. KEVIN GENOVESE, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court upon periodic review. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 17, 2017 [Doc. 1]. In his petition, Petitioner challenges the legality of his confinement pursuant to his February 20, 1998 conviction from the Greene County Circuit Court [Id. at 3]. Petitioner's first § 2254 habeas petition, filed on May 25, 2005, was dismissed as time-barred. See Bryant v. Carlton, No. 2:05-cv-151, 2006 WL 44269 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 6, 2006). Petitioner also filed an Order from the Sixth Circuit authorizing a second or successive habeas petition [Doc. 1-2].
However, Petitioner also filed another petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, which was transferred to this Court on May 18, 2017. See Bryant v. Parker, et al., No. 2:17-cv-097-JRG-MCLC, Doc. 1 (E.D. Tenn., filed May 18, 2017). This case remains before the Court, and challenges the same 1998 conviction [Id.].
"As between federal district courts, . . . though no precise rule has evolved, the general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation." Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). "Generally, a suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions." Serlin v. Aruthus Anderson & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993). Faced with a duplicative suit, such as this one, a federal court may exercise its discretion to stay or dismiss the suit before it, allow both federal cases to proceed, or enjoin the parties from proceeding in the other suit. See Smith v. SEC, 129 F.3d 356, 361 (6th Cir. 1997).
With respect to duplicative suits, the Sixth Circuit has stated
"[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." Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138-39 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Missouri v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 259 F.3d 949, 953-54 (8th Cir. 2001) (joining other courts that have held a district court may dismiss one of two identical pending actions).Twaddle v. Diem, 200 F. Appx 435, 438 (6th Cir. 2006) (alterations in original). Accordingly, this Court will DISMISS this § 2254 petition without prejudice. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000) (explaining that courts have "due flexibility to prevent vexatious litigation," with respect to duplicative mixed petitions).
The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not demonstrated "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Id. Lastly, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal in this matter would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.
ENTER:
s/ J. RONNIE GREER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE