Caunobly v. Holder et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 9/13/13. (SAC )

Download PDF
FILED 2013 Sep-13 PM 04:14 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION PORIS CAUNOBLY, Petitioner, v. ERIC HOLDER, JR., et al, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 4:13-cv-1571-WMA-JEO MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is before the court on the Petition for Habeas Corpus that was initially filed by Poris Caunobly in the Southern District of New York, but was later transferred to the Northern District of Alabama. (Docs. 1-3). After review, the magistrate judge noted that Petitioner already had a virtually identical habeas petition pending in this district, Case Number 4:13-cv1125-JFG-JEO. Thus, the magistrate judge entered an order requiring Petitioner to show cause why the instant petition should not be dismissed as duplicative of the petition that was filed in 4:13-cv-1125-JFG-JEO. On September 12, 2013, Petitioner filed a response acknowledging that the petitions state the same cause of action and seek identical relief. (Doc. 5 at 2). Further, Petitioner does not object to the dismissal of the instant petition. (Id.) Accordingly, the abovestyled petition is due to be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of the petition filed in 4:13-cv-1125-JFG-JEO. See Joyner v. Baker, CIV.A. 1:07-CV-2908T, 2008 WL 178584 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 17, 2008) (citing Durbin v. Jefferson Nat'l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551-52 (11th Cir.1986) for the proposition that in “order to avoid duplicative litigation, a trial court may, in the exercise of its discretion, either stay or dismiss [a] duplicative action.”). A separate order will be enter. DONE this 13th day of September, 2013. _____________________________ WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?