Gilchrist v. The People of the State of California

Filing 6

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/1/15 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice, as duplicative of petitioners pending habeas action in this court, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1093 MCE DAD P. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSHUA J. GILCHRIST,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

No. 2:15-cv-1094 JAM DAD P

Petitioner,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondents.
Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The court is required to screen all actions brought by prisoners who seek any form of

20

relief, including habeas relief, from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

21

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a habeas petition if the

22

prisoner raises claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious” or fail to state a basis on which

23

habeas relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). This means the court must dismiss a

24

habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

25

petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” Rule 4 Governing Section 2254 Cases.

26

Petitioner filed this action for writ of habeas corpus on May 20, 2015. Court records

27

reveal that on the same day, petitioner filed a separate action using the form provided by the court

28

to state and county inmates who seek redress of alleged civil rights violations under the Civil
1

1

Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 See Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1093 MCE DAD P. In an order

2

dated June 1, 2015, the court found that in both cases the petitioner in fact seeks habeas relief

3

based on the alleged “invalidity” of the same plea agreement in a state court criminal case and,

4

further, that “in neither action does [petitioner] seek any type of relief available under the Civil

5

Rights Act.” See Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1093, Order filed June 1, 2015 (ECF No. 6) at 3.)

6

The court therefore construed the civil rights complaint filed in Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1093 as

7

a petition for writ of habeas corpus (see id. at 3, 5), thus rendering the allegations of the petition

8

in this case duplicative. As such, this action should now be dismissed. See Adams v. California

9

Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir.2007) (“After weighing the equities of the

10

case, the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action[.]”),

11

overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008); Pierce v. Obama, No.

12

1:14-cv-1992-GSA-HC, 2015 WL 300676 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015) (“Federal courts retain

13

broad powers to control their dockets and ‘prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation.’”)

14

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)).

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

16

prejudice, as duplicative of petitioner’s pending habeas action in this court, Civil Action No.

17

2:15-cv-1093 MCE DAD P. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

18

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this

19

case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served

20

with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court.

21

The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

22

/////

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27
28

1

A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d
500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).
2

1

Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

2

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

3

Cir. 1991).

4

Dated: June 1, 2015

5
6
7

hm
gilc1094.123

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3