Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00958/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00958-1/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOE GALINDO OROSCO, JR., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

W. KNIPP, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. 2:15-cv-958-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. As explained below, the petition filed in this action is duplicative of a petition 

filed in an earlier action. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed as duplicative. 

A suit is duplicative if the “claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ 

between the two actions.” Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999) 

(quoting Ridge Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 

1210, 1213 (N.D. Ill. 1983)). “When a complaint involving the same parties and issues has 

already been filed in another federal district court, the court has discretion to abate or dismiss the 

second action. Id. at 1144 (citation omitted). “Federal comity and judicial economy give rise to 

rules which allow a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a similar complaint 

has already been filed in another federal court.” Id. at 1145 (citation omitted). “[I]ncreasing 

calendar congestion in the federal courts makes it imperative to avoid concurrent litigation in 

Case 2:15-cv-00958-TLN-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/21/15 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

more than one forum whenever consistent with the right of the parties.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 

F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979). 

 On April 27, 2015, petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in this 

district. See Orosco v. Knipp, No. 2:15-cv-902-MCE-DAD (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 1. That petition 

challenges the November 2, 2012 judgment of conviction imposed by the Sacramento County 

Superior Court in Case No. 11F02194. The following day, petitioner commenced this action by 

filing a petition that appears to be identical to the petition he filed in the first action. See ECF No. 

1 (originally filed in the Fresno division of this court). Due to the duplicative nature of the 

present action, this action should be dismissed and petitioner should proceed on the action he 

initially commenced. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk shall randomly assign a United States 

District Judge to this case; and 

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

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 

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

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue 

in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (the district court must issue or deny a 

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 

DATED: May 21, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00958-TLN-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/21/15 Page 2 of 2