Soria v. People Of California

Filing 5

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/31/18 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP and DENYING 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. The clerk of court shall randomly assign a United States District Court Judge to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days(Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THEODORE SORIA,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:18-cv-1309-EFB P

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas

18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Examination of this action and the court’s records reveals

19

that the petitioner is already proceeding with a petition for relief in another case. See Soria v.

20

California, No. 2:18-cv-1218-CKD (E.D. Cal.). Accordingly, this petition must be dismissed as

21

duplicative.

22

/////

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and requests appointment of
counsel (ECF Nos. 2 & 3). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). His affidavit indicates that petitioner is
unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, his request to proceed in forma pauperis is
granted. However, there currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas
proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). The court may appoint
counsel at any stage of the proceedings “if the interests of justice so require.” See 18 U.S.C. §
3006A; see also, Rule 8(c), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. The court does not find that the
interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings.

1

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

2

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

3

Ridge Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 1210, 1213

4

(N.D. Ill. 1983)). “When a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed

5

in another federal district court, the court has discretion to abate or dismiss the second action. Id.

6

at 1144 (citation omitted). “Federal comity and judicial economy give rise to rules which allow a

7

district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a similar complaint has already been

8

filed in another federal court.” Id. at 1145 (citation omitted). “[I]ncreasing calendar congestion in

9

the federal courts makes it imperative to avoid concurrent litigation in more than one forum

10

whenever consistent with the right of the parties.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir.

11

1979).

12
13

Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, this action should be dismissed and
petitioner should proceed on the action he initially commenced.

14

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

15

1. Petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted;

16

2. Petitioners request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is denied; and

17

3. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this

18

action.

19

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

20

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

21

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

22

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

23

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

24

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

25

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file

26

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

27

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

28

1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue
2

1

in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Rules Governing Section

2

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (the district court must issue or deny a certificate

3

of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant).

4

DATED: May 31, 2018.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3