Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01800/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01800-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EZRA DAVE GIPAN MAILING, No. 2:16-cv-1800-JAM-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a detainee proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is challenging his detention by the Immigration

and Customs Enforcement. Petition has filed a request that this case be consolidated with

another case, 2:16-cv-1263 JAM EFB.

28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that the court shall issue an order directing a response

to the writ “unless it appears from the application that the applicant . . . is not entitled” relief. 

Petitioner originally filed this action in the Northern District of California. After determining the

proper venue lies within the Eastern District of California, the action was transferred to this

court. However, at the same time petitioner filed this action in the Northern District, he filed a

duplicative petition in this court, case 2:16-cv-1263 JAM EFB. Petitioner has requested this case

1

Case 2:16-cv-01800-JAM-CMK Document 13 Filed 12/09/16 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

be consolidated with his other current action. Where a petitioner is proceeding pro se and files a

new petition before the district court has fully adjudicated the petitioner’s prior petition, the

Ninth Circuit has directed that the court should construe the new petition as a motion to amend

the petition rather than as a “second or successive” petition. See Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886,

890 (9th Cir. 2008). However, the undersigned finds neither consolidation nor construing the

petition as a motion to amend would serve a legitimate purpose. The petitions filed in the two

separate actions are identical. Accordingly, there is nothing to consolidate nor would there be

anything to amend. Rather, this action should simply be dismissed as duplicative of case number

2:16-cv-1263 JAM EFB, which is an active case.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s petition for

writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as duplicative of the petition filed in case 2:16-cv-1263 JAM

EFB.

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 14 days

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

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 9, 2016

____________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:16-cv-01800-JAM-CMK Document 13 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 2