-EFB (HC) Raya v. Grounds, No. 2:2011cv02557 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/19/11 ORDERING that the Clerk randomly assign a US District Judge to this case; RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
-EFB (HC) Raya v. Grounds Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ADAN M. RAYA, Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 15 16 No. CIV S-11-2557 EFB P vs. RONALD GROUNDS, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. / Petitioner, a prisoner without counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 17 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. It appears that petitioner has filed duplicative petitions, and that this 18 action should therefore be dismissed. A suit is duplicative if the “claims, parties, and available 19 relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp.2d 20 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Ridge Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram 21 & Sons, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 1210, 1213 (N.D. Ill. 1983)). “When a complaint involving the same 22 parties and issues has already been filed in another federal district court, the court has discretion 23 to abate or dismiss the second action. Id. at 1144 (citation omitted). “Federal comity and 24 judicial economy give rise to rules which allow a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an 25 action when a similar complaint has already been filed in another federal court.” Id. at 1145 26 (citation omitted). “[I]ncreasing calendar congestion in the federal courts makes it imperative to Dockets.Justia.com 1 avoid concurrent litigation in more than one forum whenever consistent with the right of the 2 parties.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979). 3 On July 29, 2011, petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in this 4 district. Raya v. Grounds, No. Civ. 11-2340 LKK EFB, Dckt. No. 1.1 In that petition, petitioner 5 challenges a 26-years-to-life sentence imposed by the Shasta County Superior Court following 6 plaintiff’s conviction of first degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon. On September 12, 7 2011, petitioner commenced this action by filing a second application, also challenging the 2007 8 judgment of conviction. See Petition, Dckt. No. 1. Due to the duplicative nature of the present 9 action, this action should be dismissed and petitioner should proceed on the action he initially 10 commenced. If petitioner wishes to challenge the 2007 judgment of conviction on additional 11 grounds, he must file an amended petition in the action he initially commenced. 12 13 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. 14 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 17 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 19 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 20 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 21 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 Dated: October 19, 2011. 23 24 25 26 1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 2

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.