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)

Download PDF
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

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?