Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02320/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02320-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony R. Turner
Petitioner
Yolo County Board of Supervisors
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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTHONY R. TURNER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

YOLO COUNTY BOARD OF 

SUPERVISORS, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-2320-EFB P 

ORDER 

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel. He used a pre-printed habeas form to 

commence this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He states that he is challenging a May 5, 2010 

judgment of conviction imposed by the Yolo County Superior Court.1 See ECF No. 1 at 1. 

However, a review of court records indicates that he is already proceeding with a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus challenging that conviction and sentence. See Turner v. Richardson, 2:13-cv0454-WBS-AC. Petitioner is represented by counsel in that case, which proceeds on the Second 

Amended Petition filed December 22, 2014. It appears that this action must be dismissed as 

duplicative of the earlier filed action. 

///// 

 1

 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; 

see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

Case 2:15-cv-02320-EFB Document 7 Filed 04/08/16 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 

27 

28 

2

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 

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

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

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 this action is dismissed without prejudice. 

DATED: April 7, 2016. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-02320-EFB Document 7 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 2