Opinion
2:23-cv-02804-WBS-EFB (HC)
11-13-2024
RAGHVENDRA SINGH, Petitioner, v. JEFF MACOMBER, Warden, Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. On August 13, 2024, the court granted petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered respondent to respond to the petition within 60 days. ECF No. 9. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) and petitioner has filed a motion for default judgment (ECF No. 16). Because it has come to the court's attention that the petition is duplicative of an earlier-filed petition also pending in this district, the undersigned recommends that the court summarily dismiss this petition and direct the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions and close the case.
In this case, petitioner raises six grounds for relief: (1) that he was wrongfully denied work credit; (2) that he was convicted of a crime that is “not a crime”; (3) that his poor health requires that his criminal conviction be dismissed or he be provided an alternative sentence; (4) that the prosecutor failed to prove “any element of the corpus delicti”; (5) that he was wrongfully denied credit for class attendance; and (6) that his charges should be reduced to misdemeanors. ECF No. 1. Petitioner raises the precise six claims in the petition filed in Eastern District No. 2:23-cv-02423-AC (ECF No. 1). Donaldson v. Hatton, No. EDCV 17-2242 RGK(JC), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158408, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2018) (citation omitted) (“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.”). Because the petition in this action is duplicative of the earlier filed No. 2:23-cv-02423-AC, this action should be dismissed as duplicative.
For those reasons, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this petition be dismissed and the Clerk of Court be directed to terminate the pending motions and close the case.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).