(HC) Arciniega Calzada v. Warden ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDMUNDO ARCINIEGA CALZADA, No. 2:23-cv-0612 DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 WARDEN, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has not, however, filed an in forma 19 pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). In 20 addition, examination of this action and the court’s records reveals that the petitioner is already 21 proceeding with a petition for relief in the same matter. See Arciniega Calzada v. Warden, No. 22 2:23-cv-0599-EFB (E.D. Cal.). Respondent has been ordered to respond to the petition in that 23 matter. See id. 24 A suit is duplicative if the “claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ 25 between the two actions.” Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp.2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting 26 Ridge Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 1210, 1213 27 (N.D. Ill. 1983)). “When a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed 28 in another federal district court, the court has discretion to abate or dismiss the second action. Id. 1 | at 1144 (citation omitted). “Federal comity and judicial economy give rise to rules which allow a 2 || district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a similar complaint has already been 3 || filed in another federal court.” Id. at 1145 (citation omitted). “[I]ncreasing calendar congestion in 4 || the federal courts makes it imperative to avoid concurrent litigation... whenever consistent with 5 || the right of the parties.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979). 6 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, this action should be dismissed and 7 || petitioner should proceed on the action initially commenced. 8 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 9 || shall assign a district judge to this case. 10 In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows: 11 1. This action be dismissed as duplicative to Arciniega Calzada v. Warden, No. 2:23-cv- 12 | 0599-EFB (E.D. Cal.). 13 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 16 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 17 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 18 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 19 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 20 || Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 | Dated: June 6, 2023 23 || DLB7 arci0612.dup.ft BORAH BARNES 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28