Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fordjour v. Mueller

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 3, 2008

CHARLES FORDJOUR, PETITIONER,
v.
DIRECTOR ROBERT MUELLER, III, ET.AL., RESPONDENTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS DUPLICATIVE [Doc. 1]

Petitioner appears to be a California pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Kings County Jail in Hanford, California, and is proceeding pro se, with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

On August 1, 2008, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus was transferred to this Court from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (Court Doc. 4.) After a review of the instant petition and the Court's docket of Petitioner's prior petitions, this action must be dismissed as duplicative.

A district court may dismiss a petition as duplicative after the weighing the equities of the case. Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007). In determining whether a second action is duplicative of a prior action, the court should examine 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. An identical cause of action is determined by the transaction test, derived from the concept of claim preclusion. Id. The court must also determine whether the defendants are the same or in privity. Privity includes relationship that fall under the title of "virtual representation." Kourtis v. Cameron, 419 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir. 2005).

A plaintiff must bring one action against a party or privies relating to the same transaction or event. Adams, 487 F.3d at 693. A court has the power to dismiss a duplicative action with prejudice to prevent a plaintiff from "fragmenting a single cause of action and litigating piecemeal the issue which could have been resolved in one action." Adams, 487 F.3d at 694.

On June 23, 2008, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court, in case number 1:08-cv-00885-OWW-WMW (HC). After reviewing the instant petition and the petition in case number 1:08-cv-00885-OWW-WMW (HC), it is clear that the claims arise from the same incident, raises the same claim, and seeks the same relief, as the previous petition which is currently pending in this Court. Indeed, both petitions challenge his current and ongoing pre-trial detention in the Kings County Jail arising from actions taken during April of 2008.*fn1

Because the allegations in the instant petition raise the same claim(s) and is based upon the same set of operative facts as the pending petition, it must be dismissed as duplicative.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as duplicative, and all pending motions be denied, as moot.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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 thirty (30) days 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." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court 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 Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.