Thelen v. Billingsley

Filing 4

OPINION and ORDER summarily dismissing as duplicative Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PATRICK THELEN,

Petitioner,

Case Number 2:19-CV-10182
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

v.
JAMES BILLINGSLEY,
Respondent,
___________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING AS DUPLICATIVE
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Patrick Thelen, (“Petitioner”), incarcerated at the RRC Halfway House in
Saginaw, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Petitioner challenges a disciplinary hearing conducted by the Bureau of
Prisons, in which he was found guilty of testing positive in a urinalysis for using
amphetamines and methamphetamines. This finding resulted in the loss of 39 days
credit. For the reasons that follow, the petition is SUMMARILY DISMISSED AS
DUPLICATIVE of two pending habeas petitions.
The petitioner filed two prior habeas actions challenging the same disciplinary
conviction and raising the same claim, which are currently pending in the federal
court. See Thelen v. Terris, No. 5:18-cv-13719 (E.D. Mich.)(Levy, J.); Thelen v.
Billingsley, No. 2:19-cv-10212 (E.D. Mich.)(Lawson, J.).
1

A suit is duplicative and subject to dismissal if the claims, parties, and
available relief do not significantly differ from an earlier-filed action. See, e.g.,
Barapind v. Reno, 72 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Petitioner’s current
habeas petition challenges the same disciplinary conviction and is based on the same
ground as the previous cases assigned to Judge Levy and Judge Lawson. The present
petition must be dismissed because it is a duplicate petition. See, e.g. Daniel v.
Lafler, No. 06-CV-12343, 2006 WL 1547772, at * 1 (E.D. Mich. June 1, 2006); see
also Davis v. United States Parole Comm'n, 870 F.2d 657, 1989 WL 25837, * 1 (6th
Cir. Mar. 7, 1989)(a district court may dismiss a habeas petition as duplicative of a
pending habeas petition when the second petition is the same as the first petition).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
DISMISSED as a duplicate petition without prejudice to the adjudication of the
habeas petitions filed as Case No. 5:18-cv-13719 and Case No. 2:19-cv-10212.
Because a certificate of appealability is not needed to appeal the denial of a habeas
petition filed under § 2241, Witham v. United States, 355 F. 3d 501, 504 (6th Cir.
2004), petitioner is not required to apply for one before filing an appeal from the
denial of his habeas petition.
s/George Caram Steeh
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
United States District Judge
DATED: February 8, 2019
2