(HC) Rankin v. The People, No. 2:2016cv00992 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/14/16 ORDERING that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign aUnited States District Judge to this action. Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. Randomly assigned and referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
(HC) Rankin v. The People Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE DAVID RANKIN, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 15 v. No. 2:16-cv-0992-EFB P ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THE PEOPLE, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a county prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Examination of this action and the court’s records 19 reveals that the petitioner is already proceeding with a petition for relief in the same matter. See 20 Rankin v. Honea, No. 2:16-cv-566-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.). 21 A suit is duplicative if the “claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ 22 between the two actions.” Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999) 23 (quoting Ridge Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 24 1210, 1213 (N.D. Ill. 1983)). “When a complaint involving the same parties and issues has 25 already been filed in another federal district court, the court has discretion to abate or dismiss the 26 second action. Id. at 1144 (citation omitted). “Federal comity and judicial economy give rise to 27 rules which allow a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a similar complaint 28 has already been filed in another federal court.” Id. at 1145 (citation omitted). “[I]ncreasing Dockets.Justia.com 1 calendar congestion in the federal courts makes it imperative to avoid concurrent litigation in 2 more than one forum whenever consistent with the right of the parties.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 3 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979). 4 5 6 7 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, this action should be dismissed and petitioner should proceed on the action he initially commenced. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. 8 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 11 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 14 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file 15 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 16 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 17 1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue 18 in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 19 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a 20 final order adverse to the applicant). 21 DATED: June 14, 2016. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.