Burrows v. Terris
OPINION and ORDER Dismissing as Duplicative 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CHARLES E. BURROWS,
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-14120
HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN
J. A. TERRIS,
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
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,
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?