Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00612/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00612-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMIRO MUNOZ GARZA,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-00612 OWW SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 5]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 2, 2008, and

pursuant to this Court’s order, an amended petition was filed on June 13, 2008. (Court Docs. 1,

3, 5.) As discussed below, the instant action must be dismissed as duplicative and for failure to

state a cognizable claim. 

Here, it is clear that Petitioner is seeking to litigate the same claims against the same

parties, or unnamed parties, in multiple suits. Petitioner has filed, and continues to file,

numerous petitions in this Court alleging the same claim(s), which have all been dismissed for

failure to state a claim. See e.g. 1:06-cv-01256 LJO TAG HC; 1:06-cv-01620 OWW WMW HC

(dismissed on April 20, 2007); 1:06-cv-01856 OWW SMS HC (dismissed on July 6, 2007);

1:07-cv-00252 AWI TAG HC (dismissed on March 7, 2008); 1:07-cv-00385 LJO DLB HC

(dismissed on October 12, 2007); 1:07-cv-00763 LJO TAG HC (dismissed on March 3, 2008). 

Case 1:08-cv-00612-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 07/23/08 Page 1 of 4
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

“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

v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007). “Plaintiffs generally

have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same

time in the same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (quoting

Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc)). 

In assessing whether a second action is duplicative of the first, the court examines

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. First, the court must examine whether the causes of action in

the two suits are identical pursuant to the transaction test, developed in the context of claim

preclusion. Id. Second, the court determines whether the defendants are the same or in privity. 

 Privity includes an array of relationships which fit under the title of “virtual representation.”

Kourtis v. Cameron, 419 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir. 2005). “The necessary elements of virtual

representation are an identity of interests and adequate representation.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 691

(citing Kourtis, 419 F.3d at 996). “Additional features of a virtual representation relationship

include a close relationship, substantial participation, and tactical maneuvering.” Adams, 487

F.3d at 691 (quoting Kourtis, 419 F.3d at 996).

A plaintiffs is required to bring at one time all of the claims against a party or privies

relating to the same transaction or event. Adams, 487 F.3d at 693. The court has discretion to

dismiss a duplicative complaint with prejudice to prevent a plaintiff from “fragmenting a single

cause of action and litigating piecemeal the issues which could have been resolved in one

action.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 694 (quoting Flynn v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs, 418 F.2d

668, 668 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam)).

In this case, all of the petitions challenge the same Cal. Penal Code § 245(A) offense for

fighting and the claims raised are the same. Therefore, the Court finds that the instant action

should be dismissed.

Moreover, aside from the duplicative nature of the petitions, the instant petition fails to

Case 1:08-cv-00612-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 07/23/08 Page 2 of 4
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

state a cognizable federal claim. This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in

behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he

is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(a). 

The AEDPA altered the standard of review that a federal habeas court must apply with

respect to a state prisoner's claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court. Williams v.

Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1518-23 (2000). Under the AEDPA, an application for habeas corpus

will not be granted unless the adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary

to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by

the Supreme Court of the United States;” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Court

proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade,123 S.Ct.1166 (2003) (disapproving of

the Ninth Circuit’s approach in Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2000)); Williams v.

Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000). “A federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply

because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision

applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Lockyer, at 1175 (citations

omitted). “Rather, that application must be objectively unreasonable.” Id. (citations omitted). 

In the instant petition, Petitioner states, in incoherent terms:

[G]ot [b]usted Fresno, CA for 187 murder 2 hand person lived with they

gave me 1 year program 5 year probation 13 year LID when I was at the program I

got into a fight self defense fight a guy hit me I hit back. Self defense fight when I

went to court they gave me 13 year LID I would like time served or into another

program I’ve got 6 year in get out 2013 5 years left. When I went to court for

probation I got LID time had not the other person shown up to court they found

me guilty. 

(Petition, at 5.) 

Petitioner makes no reference to the Constitution or laws of the United States and

provides no argument (in fact, he does not indicate whether he has sought state court relief) as to

how the decision of the state’s highest court “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

Supreme Court of the United States;” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an

Case 1:08-cv-00612-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 07/23/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Court

proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The petition therefore fails to provide a basis for habeas

corpus relief. Furthermore, relief by way of § 2254 is not a direct appeal, and to the extent

Petitioner seeks to pursue such an appeal, he must do so through the state court system. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED as duplicative and for failure to state cognizable federal claim under § 2254. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and

Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District

of California. Within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after being served

with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 

Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days

(plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then review the

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00612-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 07/23/08 Page 4 of 4