Campbell v. Curtis, No. 2:2007cv14826 - Document 6 (E.D. Mich. 2007)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and directing that pleadings be filed in Case No. 07-14607. Signed by Honorable Paul D Borman. (PMil)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Campbell v. Curtis Doc. 6 Case 2:07-cv-14826-PDB-SDP Document 6 Filed 11/14/2007 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DERRICK CAMPBELL, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 07-CV-14826 HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN WARDEN CURTIS, Respondent. _____________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND DIRECTING THAT PLEADINGS BE FILED IN CASE NO. 07-CV-14607 Derrick Campbell ( Petitioner ), a Michigan prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 challenging his conviction for delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine which was imposed by the Washtenaw County Circuit Court in 1993. Petitioner has previously filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the same conviction, but he was given permission to file a second or successive habeas petition by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Petitioner, however, has already filed a (second) habeas action challenging the same conviction with this Court, which is pending in this Court. See Campbell v. Curtis, Case No. 07CV-14607. Accordingly, the instant action must be dismissed as duplicative. A suit is duplicative, and subject to dismissal, if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions. See, e.g., Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (internal citations omitted). The instant action is duplicative of his pending petition. In fact, it appears that Petitioner may have been attempting to file the instant 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:07-cv-14826-PDB-SDP Document 6 Filed 11/14/2007 Page 2 of 2 pleadings as part of his original habeas action, but the documents were erroneously filed as a new case. In any event, because Petitioner challenges the same convictions in both petitions and raises similar claims, the Court will dismiss this second petition as duplicative. See Harrington v. Stegall, 2002 WL 373113, *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2002); Colon v. Smith, 2000 WL 760711, *1, n. 1 (E.D. Mich. May 8, 2000); see also Davis v. United States Parole Comm n, 870 F.2d 657, 1989 WL 25837, *1 (6th Cir. March 7, 1989) (district court may dismiss a habeas petition as duplicative of a pending habeas petition when the second petition is essentially the same as the first petition). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the instant case as duplicative. This dismissal is without prejudice to the habeas petition filed as Case No. 07-CV-14607. The Court further DIRECTS that the pleadings filed in the present case be re-filed in Case No. 07-CV-14607. This case is CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Paul D. Borman PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: November 14, 2007 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on November 14, 2007. s/Denise Goodine Case Manager 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.
