Opinion
CV 22-2595 JFW (PVC)
05-04-2022
Michael David Grant v. Danny Samuels, Acting Warden
Present: The Honorable Pedro V. Castillo, United States Magistrate Judge.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PROCEEDINGS: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE
On April 10, 2022, Petitioner, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, constructively filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (“Current Petition, ” Dkt. No. 1 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 6 (construing Petitioner's “Emergency Petition” as a petition for habeas corpus)). The Current Petition raises one ground for federal habeas relief: Petitioner was wrongfully denied sentencing credits, which would have allowed him to be released in February 2021. (Id. at 1-2). However, the Current Petition is subject to dismissal because it appears to be duplicative of Petitioner's still-pending federal habeas petition.
Under the mailbox rule, “[w]hen a prisoner gives prison authorities a habeas petition or other pleading to mail to court, the court deems the petition constructively ‘filed' on the date it is signed[, ]” which in this case was April 10, 2022. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.l (9th Cir. 2010); see also Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). Page citations to Petitioner's filings such as the Petition, which includes non-sequential pages and many attached exhibits, refer to the CM/ECF-generated page numbers on the Court's docket.
Petitioner already has a pending previously initiated action, in which the operative Petition for Habeas Corpus (“Prior Petition”) challenges the same state court judgment and raises the identical ground for habeas relief. See Michael David Grant v. Danny Samuels, Acting Warden, No. CV 22-0790 JFW (PVC) (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 18, 2022) (“Prior Federal Action”). “In cases in which a federal habeas petitioner already has pending a federal habeas petition pertaining to the same state court judgment in the same court, dismissal is appropriate because the maintenance of a duplicative action serves no legitimate purpose.” Donaldson v. Hatton, No. EDCV 17-2242, 2018 WL 4492404, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2018); see Heidinger v. Yates, 2007 WL 1711776 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2007) (dismissing habeas petition because petitioner already had habeas petition pertaining to same state court conviction pending in same court); Smith v. Louisiana, 2006 WL 1985467 (E.D. La. June 7, 2006) (even if construed as habeas petition, filing challenging convictions should be dismissed as duplicative since petitioner already has pending in same court a habeas petition involving same convictions). If Petitioner is entitled to any habeas relief relative to his claim in the Current Petition, the Court can afford such relief in the Prior Federal Action. Therefore, maintenance of the present, apparently duplicative action would serve no legitimate purpose.
Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within fourteen days of the date of this Order, why the Current Petition should not be dismissed as duplicative of the Prior Petition. Petitioner may discharge this OSC by filing a declaration, under oath, explaining why the Current Petition is not duplicative of the Prior Petition. Alternatively, Petitioner may voluntarily dismiss this action. A blank notice of dismissal is attached for Petitioner's convenience.
Petitioner is expressly warned that the failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause by the Court's deadline may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and obey court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.