Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01923/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01923-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dean Borders
Respondent
Albert Trevizo
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT TREVIZO,

Petitioner,

v.

DEAN BORDERS,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01923 MJS (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS AS DUPLICATIVE OF 

EARLIER FILED PETITION 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO 

THE PRESENT MATTER

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 8, 2016, Petitioner filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

The petition was assigned case number “1:16-cv-01845 DAD SKO HC,” and is currently 

pending before the Court. In that petition, Petitioner presents claims relating to his 

September 22, 2004 conviction for first degree burglary. Specifically, he asserts that his 

counsel provided ineffective assistance in allowing him to enter into the plea agreement 

and that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made. 

On December 20, 2016, Petitioner filed a second federal petition for writ of 

Case 1:16-cv-01923-DAD-MJS Document 5 Filed 01/12/17 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

2

habeas corpus. This petition has been assigned case number “1:16-cv-01923 MJS HC.” 

In the instant petition, Petitioner presents similar, if not identical, challenges to his 

conviction. (Pet., ECF No. 1.)

“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.’” Id. (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.” Id.

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.

In the present case, the instant petition challenges the same issues already being 

Case 1:16-cv-01923-DAD-MJS Document 5 Filed 01/12/17 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

3

adjudicated by the Court in case number “1:16-cv-01845 DAD SKO HC.” The Court 

recommends the instant petition be dismissed as duplicative.

Recommendation

It is RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED 

as duplicative. Further, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to assign a District Court 

Judge to the present matter.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 

(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, 

Petitioner 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 Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 

F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2017 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01923-DAD-MJS Document 5 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 3