Caunobly v. Holder et al

Filing 6

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

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