(HC) Garza v. On Habeas Corpus, No. 1:2007cv01453 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2007)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED as duplicative, signed by Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/11/2007. Motion referred to Judge Wanger, Objections to F&R due by 10/25/2007. (Scrivner, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Garza v. On Habeas Corpus Doc. 5 Case 1:07-cv-01453-OWW-NEW Document 5 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 RAMIRO GARZA, 13 Petitioner, 14 v. 15 16 ON HABEAS CORPUS, 17 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:07-CV-01453 OWW NEW (DLB) HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 18 19 20 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 21 On July 19, 2007, Petitioner filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 22 This petition was assigned case number “1:07-CV-01067 LJO TAG HC.” On October 4, 2007, 23 Petitioner filed another federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. This petition was 24 assigned case number “1:07-CV-01453 OWW NEW (DLB) HC.” The Court has reviewed both of 25 the pending federal petitions listed above and finds that the second petition is duplicative. 26 “After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion to 27 dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the previously filed 28 action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.” Adams v. U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:07-cv-01453-OWW-NEW Document 5 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 2 of 3 1 California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007). “Plaintiffs generally have 2 ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the 3 same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (quoting Walton v. Eaton 4 Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc)). 5 In assessing whether a second action is duplicative of the first, the court examines whether 6 the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same. 7 Adams, 487 F.3d at 689. First, the court must examine whether the causes of action in the two suits 8 are identical pursuant to the transaction test, developed in the context of claim preclusion. Id. 9 Second, the court determines whether the defendants are the same or in privity. Privity includes an 10 array of relationships which fit under the title of “virtual representation.” Kourtis v. Cameron, 419 11 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir. 2005). “The necessary elements of virtual representation are an identity of 12 interests and adequate representation.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 691 (citing Kourtis, 419 F.3d at 996). 13 “Additional features of a virtual representation relationship include a close relationship, substantial 14 participation, and tactical maneuvering.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 691 (quoting Kourtis, 419 F.3d at 15 996). 16 A plaintiffs is required to bring at one time all of the claims against a party or privies relating 17 to the same transaction or event. Adams, 487 F.3d at 693. The court has discretion to dismiss a 18 duplicative complaint with prejudice to prevent a plaintiff from “fragmenting a single cause of action 19 and litigating piecemeal the issues which could have been resolved in one action.” Adams, 487 F.3d 20 at 694 (quoting Flynn v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs, 418 F.2d 668, 668 (9th Cir.1969) (per 21 curiam)). 22 In this case, the petitions challenge the same Cal. Penal Code § 245(A) offense for fighting 23 and the claims raised are the same. Therefore, the Court finds that the instant action should be 24 dismissed. 25 RECOMMENDATION 26 27 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED as duplicative. 28 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 2 Case 1:07-cv-01453-OWW-NEW Document 5 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 3 of 3 1 States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 2 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 3 Within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after being served with a copy, any 4 party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 5 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to 6 the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) 7 after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 8 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 9 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 10 Cir. 1991). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: 3b142a October 11, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
