Rankin v. The People
Filing
7
AMENDED ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/16/16 ORDERING that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. It is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; 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
GEORGE DAVID RANKIN,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
v.
No. 2:16-cv-0992-EFB P
AMENDED ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
THE PEOPLE,
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner is a county prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of
18
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Examination of this action and the court’s records
19
reveals that the petitioner is already proceeding with a petition for relief in the same matter. See
20
Rankin v. Honea, No. 2:16-cv-556-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.).
21
A suit is duplicative if the “claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ
22
between the two actions.” Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999)
23
(quoting Ridge Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 572 F. Supp.
24
1210, 1213 (N.D. Ill. 1983)). “When a complaint involving the same parties and issues has
25
already been filed in another federal district court, the court has discretion to abate or dismiss the
26
second action. Id. at 1144 (citation omitted). “Federal comity and judicial economy give rise to
27
rules which allow a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a similar complaint
28
has already been filed in another federal court.” Id. at 1145 (citation omitted). “[I]ncreasing
1
calendar congestion in the federal courts makes it imperative to avoid concurrent litigation in
2
more than one forum whenever consistent with the right of the parties.” Crawford v. Bell, 599
3
F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979).
4
5
6
7
Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, this action should be dismissed and
petitioner should proceed on the action he initially commenced.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a
United States District Judge to this action.
8
Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.
9
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
10
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
11
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
12
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
13
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
14
shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file
15
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
16
Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.
17
1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue
18
in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Rules Governing Section
19
2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a
20
final order adverse to the applicant).
21
DATED: June 16, 2016.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?