Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01319-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 

JOE GALINDO OROSCOS, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

W. KNIPP, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. 2:15-cv-1319-EFB P (TEMP) 

ORDER 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. This 

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is 

before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. 

Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

The court is required to screen all actions brought by prisoners who seek any form of 

relief, including habeas relief, from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a habeas petition or portion 

thereof if the prisoner raises claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious” or fail to state a basis 

on which habeas relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). This means the court must 

dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 

the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Case 2:15-cv-01319-EFB Document 8 Filed 05/12/16 Page 1 of 2
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

 Petitioner initially filed this petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit on April 27, 2015. On the very same day, petitioner filed a virtually identical petition and 

exhibits in this court. See Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-0902 MCE KJN P (TEMP). The Ninth 

Circuit transferred the petition it received to this court on June 19, 2015. The transfer, while 

wholly appropriate, rendered this action duplicative of the action already pending in Case No. 

2:15-cv-0902. 

 Federal courts have discretion to dismiss petitions that are duplicative of an already-filed 

action. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). Furthermore, there is no reason here to 

construe the second-filed petition’s virtually identical allegations and arguments as an amended 

petition, as allowed in Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888-90 (9th Cir. 2008). Instead, the 

interests of judicial economy necessitate dismissing this action without prejudice, as duplicative 

of the pending litigation in Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-0902 MCE KJN P (TEMP). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. This action is dismissed without prejudice, as duplicative of the pending litigation in 

Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-0902 MCE KJN P (TEMP). 

2. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability as provided in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253. 

3. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 

DATED: May 11, 2016.

Case 2:15-cv-01319-EFB Document 8 Filed 05/12/16 Page 2 of 2