(HC) Kennedy v. United States ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL SEAN KENNEDY, No. 2:20-cv-01418-TLN-KJN 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Michael Sean Kennedy’s (“Petitioner”) 18 “Emergency Motion for a Stay of Removal and Request for an Expedited Hearing” (ECF No. 5) 19 filed in connection with Petitioner’s Emergency Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis (ECF 20 No. 1). For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is DENIED as duplicative. (ECF No. 5.) 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing his 2 Emergency Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis on July 10, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner 3 concurrently filed the same document as a motion in his ongoing criminal case, USA v. Mysin et 4 al. (Mysin), No. 2:11-cr-00427-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal. 2011), ECF No. 355.1 On August 11, 2020, 5 Petitioner filed the instant Motion (ECF No. 5), which he also filed in his criminal case on the 6 same date. Mysin, No. 2:11-cr-00427-TLN-CKD, ECF No. 359. On August 17, 2020, the Court 7 ordered the Government to respond to Petitioner’s motion as filed in the criminal matter. Id. at 8 ECF No. 362. 9 The two emergency motions are virtually identical. (See ECF No. 5); cf Mysin, No. 2:11- 10 cr-00427-TLN-CKD, ECF No. 359. Petitioner’s ongoing criminal case, which is already 11 adjudicating these issues on the merits, thus renders the instant Motion duplicative. As such, the 12 Court finds Petitioner’s motion is more appropriately addressed in his ongoing criminal matter. 13 See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000) (federal courts “retain broad powers to prevent 14 duplicative or unnecessary litigation”); Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 15 2015) (denying motion that was a duplicate of an earlier motion); see also Garza v. Unknown, 16 No. 1:08-cv-01307 GSA, 2009 WL 197528 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2009) (dismissing habeas petition 17 as duplicative); In re Flashcom, Inc., 647 F. App’x 689, 693 (9th Cir. 2016) (upholding sanctions 18 for filing motions that duplicated one that was previously denied). Accordingly, the Motion is 19 DENIED as duplicative. (ECF No. 5.) 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: August 19, 2020 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are generally known or easily determinable from “sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned,” such as court 28 records. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004).