Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00763/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00763-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ramiro Munoz Garza
Petitioner
On Habeas Corpus
Respondent

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMIRO MUNOZ GARZA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ON HABEAS CORPUS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-00763-LJO-TAG HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS AS DUPLICATIVE

(Doc. 1)

ORDER TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN

TEN COURT DAYS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On August 25, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States

District Court for the Central District of California, which was subsequently transferred to the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California and filed in this Court on September 13,

2006 and assigned the case number “1:06-cv-01256-LJO-TAG.” On February 9, 2007, Petitioner

filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court that was assigned the case number

“1:07-cv-00252-AWI-TAG.” On May 24, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of

habeas corpus in this Court that was assigned the case number “1:07-cv-00763-LJO-TAG.” (Doc.

1). On July 19, 2007, Petitioner filed a fourth petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court that

was assigned the case number “1:07-cv-01067-LJO-TAG.” The Court has reviewed all four of the

pending federal petitions listed above and finds that the second, third, and fourth petitions are

duplicative. 

Case 1:07-cv-00763-LJO-TAG Document 5 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 3
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 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 plaintiff 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 Examiners, 418 F.2d 668, 668 (9th Cir.1969) (per

curiam)).

In this case, all four petitions appear to stem from the same incident, allege the same claim,

and seek the same relief. Although inartfully worded in each petition, Petitioner appears to have

been placed on probation in a “program” in lieu of a prison sentence that had a maximum “lid” of

thirteen years. At some point during the “program,” Petitioner was involved in an altercation that

Case 1:07-cv-00763-LJO-TAG Document 5 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 3
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

resulted in him being placed in prison. Each of the four pending petitions apparently seeks to allege

some sort of injustice from the fact that he is now serving a thirteen year sentence as a result of a

fistfight. Although Petitioner uses slightly different words to express his position in each petition, all

four petitions appear to make the same claim and are based upon the same set of operative facts. 

Therefore, the Court finds that the instant action should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

be DISMISSED as duplicative. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, 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 Recommendations.” The District Judge 

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 Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00763-LJO-TAG Document 5 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 3