Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02948/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02948-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edmund Brown
Respondent
Edward Jones
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

EDWARD JONES, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

EDMUND BROWN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-2948-MCE-EFB P 

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, this action must be dismissed because the petition filed in 

this action is duplicative of a petition filed in an earlier action. 

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 2:14-cv-02948-MCE-EFB Document 9 Filed 03/12/15 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 October 21, 2014, petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in this 

district. See Jones v. Unknown, No. 2:14-cv-2475-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 1. That 

petition challenges the Board of Parole Hearings’ denial of petitioner’s request to advance the 

date of his next parole suitability hearing. On October 28, 2014, petitioner commenced this 

action by filing a petition that is nearly identical to the petition he filed in the first action. See 

ECF No. 1. 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 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: March 12, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02948-MCE-EFB Document 9 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 2