Burrows v. Terris

Filing 9

OPINION and ORDER Dismissing as Duplicative 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHARLES E. BURROWS, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 2:17-CV-14120 HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN J. A. TERRIS, Respondent. ________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS DUPLICATIVE Federal prisoner Charles E. Burrows (“Petitioner”), currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan, has, through counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his armed career criminal sentencing enhancement and 188-month sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois in 2004. Petitioner, however, has already filed a pro se federal habeas petition under § 2241 with this Court challenging the same federal sentence, which is pending before another district judge. See Burrows v. Terris, Case No. 2:17-CV-13787 (E.D. Mich.) (Berg, J.). Consequently, the Court finds that this action is duplicative and must be dismissed. A suit is duplicative, and subject to dismissal, if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions. See, e.g., Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (internal citations omitted). Because Petitioner challenges the same sentence in both cases and raises the same issues, the Court will dismiss this second case as duplicative. See Davis v. United States Parole Comm’n, 870 F.2d 657, 1989 WL 25837, *1 (6th Cir. March 7, 1989) (district court may dismiss a habeas petition as duplicative of a pending habeas petition when the second petition is essentially the same as the first petition); Nye v. Booker, No. 07-CV-12890, 2007 WL 2318750, *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 9, 2007); Harrington v. Stegall, No. 02-CV-70573-DT, 2002 WL 373113, *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2002); see also Elliott v. Wilson, 600 F. App’x 181 (4th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of second § 2241 petition as duplicative); Mitchell v. Gunja, 76 F. App’x 865, 867 (10th Cir. 2003) (same). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the instant habeas petition as duplicative. This dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner’s habeas action in Case No. 2:17-CV13787. The Court notes that a certificate of appealability is not needed to appeal the dismissal of a habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Witham v. United States, 355 F.3d 501, 504 (6th Cir. 2004). Petitioner thus need not request one from this Court or the Sixth Circuit should he seek to appeal this decision. This case is closed. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Paul D. Borman Paul D. Borman United States District Judge Dated: January 10, 2018 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on January 10, 2018. s/Deborah Tofil Case Manager 3

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?