Turner v. Yolo County Superior Court

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/20/17 granting 5 Motion to Proceed IFP. This action is dismissed without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY R. TURNER,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-2936 KJN P

v.

ORDER

YOLO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas

17
18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

19

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs

20

of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 1915(a). Petitioner consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28

22

U.S.C. § 636(c).
Petitioner challenges his 2010 conviction in the Yolo County Superior Court. The court’s

23
24

own records reveal that petitioner is already proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

25

challenging that conviction and sentence. See Turner v. Richardson, 2:13-cv-0454 WBS AC.1

26

Petitioner is represented by counsel in that case, and was granted leave to file an amended petition

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).
1

1

thirty days after the California Supreme Court ruled on his petition for review in People v.

2

Turner, Cal. Supreme Court Case No. S232272.

3

A suit is duplicative if the “claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ

4

between the two actions.” Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999)

5

(quoting Ridge Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 572 F. Supp.

6

1210, 1213 (N.D. Ill. 1983)). “When a complaint involving the same parties and issues has

7

already been filed in another federal district court, the court has discretion to abate or dismiss the

8

second action. Id. at 1144 (citation omitted). “Federal comity and judicial economy give rise to

9

rules which allow a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a similar complaint

10

has already been filed in another federal court.” Id. at 1145 (citation omitted). “[I]ncreasing

11

calendar congestion in the federal courts makes it imperative to avoid concurrent litigation in

12

more than one forum whenever consistent with the right of the parties.” Crawford v. Bell, 599

13

F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979).

14

Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, this action should be dismissed and

15

petitioner should proceed on the action he initially commenced. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

16

ORDERED that:

17

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and

18

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

19

Dated: January 20, 2017

20
21
22
/turn2936.123

23
24
25
26
27
28
2