Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00605/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00605-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMMY MORGAN,

Petitioner,

v.

T. TUSINO, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 2:20-cv-00605 GGH P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding in pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or 

paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). Nevertheless, the 

undersigned will recommend dismissal of the pending petition as duplicative. 

“It is well established that a district court has broad discretion to control its own docket,

and that includes the power to dismiss duplicative claims.” M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist., 681 F.3d

1082, 1091 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Adams v. California Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688-

89 (9th Cir. 2007). “After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its

discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the

previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both

actions.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. “Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate

////

Case 2:20-cv-00605-TLN-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same

defendant.” Id. (citation omitted).

In the instant case, petitioner challenges his 2019 conviction in the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of California for possession of a firearm by a felon. ECF No. 1. 

Review of the court’s records indicate that petitioner has a habeas petition challenging the same 

conviction that is currently pending in case Morgan v. Tusino, 2:20-cv-00603-CKD. In “assessing 

whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and 

relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 

689. Here, not only are the claims and relief sought identical, the pending petition appears to be 

an exact copy of petitioner’s previous petition. Compare ECF No. 1, with Morgan v. Tusino, 

2:20-cv-00603-CKD, at ECF No. 1. Petitioner includes additional support and exhibits, but the 

petition itself is the same. Compare ECF No. 1 at 1-8, with Morgan v. Tusino, 2:20-cv-00603-

CKD, at ECF No. 1 at 1-8. Accordingly, the undersigned finds this petition for writ of

habeas corpus should be dismissed as duplicative. To the extent that petitioner is seeking to

pursue his remedies with respect to his 2019 conviction in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California, petitioner must do so in his initial habeas proceeding.

Petitioner may seek to add the additional support referenced above by filing a motion to 

add the material in his Morgan v. Tusino, 2:20-cv-00603-CKD action.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for emergency hearing (ECF No. 2) and petitioner’s motion for 

issuance of subpoena duces tecum (ECF No. 3) are denied as moot; and 

2. The Clerk of the Court randomly assign a district judge to this action.

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s writ for habeas corpus be 

dismissed as duplicative. 

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

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

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

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

Case 2:20-cv-00605-TLN-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

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

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

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 1, 2020

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00605-TLN-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/01/20 Page 3 of 3