Myles v. Sollie
MEMORANDUM OPINION - The Court finds that this Petition is dismissed without prejudice so that Petitioner may litigate his request for habeas relief, including any assertions presented in this civil action, in Myles v. Sollie, No. 3:16-cv-758-HTW-LRA. A Final Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order will be issued this date. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 1/24/2017 (ND)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-cv-882-CWR-LRA
This matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Petitioner Danyall
Myles, an inmate at the Lauderdale County Detention Center, Meridian, Mississippi, files this
Petition  for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Having reviewed Petitioner’s
Response , the Court finds that Petitioner has a petition for habeas relief pending in this Court in
Myles v. Sollie, No. 3:16-cv-758-HTW-LRA. Having considered the Petition , Petitioner’s
Response , applicable case law and statutes, the Court finds that the instant civil action is
duplicative of a pending habeas and therefore, it will be dismissed without prejudice.
Petitioner filed the instant request for habeas relief on November 10, 2016. Pet.  at 1. The
Petition however did not provide information relating to the criminal charge he was challenging or
the county where the criminal charge which he was challenging was pending. Id. The Court then
entered an Order  on November 15, 2016, directing Petitioner to provide additional information
concerning the criminal case he was challenging. Petitioner filed his Response  on January 17,
2017. In his Response , Petitioner states that the Court needs to refer to his Petition in civil action
3:16-cv-758-HTW-LRA. Petitioner further states that “[t]he consolidation of the two petitions will
remove any doubt or confusion created by having two different petitions and case numbers pertaining
to the same complaint.” Pet’r’s Resp. .
The Court has the authority to dismiss a civil action which is duplicative of another action
filed in federal court. See Green v. Quarterman, 2008 WL 2489840, at *2 (S.D. Tex. June 18,
2008); (citing Remington Rand Corp. v. Bus. Sys. Inc., 830 F.2d 1274, 1275-76 (quoting Landis v.
N. Amer. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (recognizing that there is a “power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants”)); see also Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Marino, 63 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir.
1995) (“A federal suit may be dismissed for ‘reasons of wise judicial administration ... whenever it
is duplicative of a parallel action already pending in another federal court.’ ”). Petitioner’s
Response  clearly states that the instant civil habeas action concerns the “same complaint” found
in Myles v. Sollie, No. 3:16-cv-758-HTW-LRA. The Court therefore has determined that the most
efficient and convenient manner in which the parties, counsel, and the Court should proceed is for
Petitioner to fully litigate his habeas claims in Myles v. Sollie, No. 3:16-cv-758-HTW-LRA, and to
dismiss the instant civil habeas action without prejudice as duplicative.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that this Petition is dismissed without
prejudice so that Petitioner may litigate his request for habeas relief, including any assertions
presented in this civil action, in Myles v. Sollie, No. 3:16-cv-758-HTW-LRA.
A Final Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order will be issued
SO ORDERED, this the 24th day of January, 2017.
s/Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?