Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00662/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00662-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

3:19-CV-00662-GPC-BGS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Michael Barrett Cason,

Petitioner,

v.

Louis Williams, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 3:19-CV-00662-GPC-BGS

ORDER DISMISSING 

DUPLICATIVE ACTION.

On April 8, 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 1.) 

Petitioner was denied leave to proceed IFP on April 10, 2019. (ECF No. 4.) Though 

Petitioner has filed various changes of address and one document entitled “Notice to 

Agent, Notice to Principle,” (ECF Nos. 5, 9, 11), he has not sought to proceed IFP again 

in this matter, nor amended his Petition.

Instead, Petitioner has proceeded in a parallel, duplicative case. On March 29, 

2019, Petitioner filed a preceding habeas petition pending before the Court. (Cason et al, 

Case No. 19-CV-0621, ECF No. 1.) In that Petition, Petitioner alleges substantially the 

same claims, albeit with more detail, as in this case. Petitioner, moreover, directs both 

suits at the same Defendant, Warden Louis Williams. And, Petitioner has continued to 

litigate that matter by, for example, filing another motion for IFP on October 3, 2019, 

which the Court then granted on December 19, 2019. (ECF Nos. 10, 11.)

Case 3:19-cv-00662-GPC-BGS Document 14 Filed 04/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
3:19-CV-00662-GPC-BGS

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

In light of the foregoing facts, the Court dismisses the above-captioned matter as 

duplicative. A litigant “ha[s] 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.” 

Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir.1977); see also Friends of the Earth, Inc. 

v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., 95 F.3d 358, 362 (5th Cir.1996). “When a plaintiff 

files a second complaint alleging the same claim as a prior, pending, related action, the 

second complaint may be dismissed.” Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. 

Cal. 1999), aff’d, 225 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Zerilli v. Evening News Assn., 

628 F.2d 217, 222 (D.C.Cir. 1980)). \ Accordingly, Petitioner’s action under Case No. 

19-CV-0662 is DISMISSED. Petitioner may proceed to litigate his habeas petition in the 

already-filed Case No. 19-CV-0621.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 30, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00662-GPC-BGS Document 14 Filed 04/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2