ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner, a prisoner without counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. It appears that petitioner has filed duplicative petitions, and that this action should therefore be dismissed. 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).
On July 29, 2011, petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in this district. Raya v. Grounds, No. Civ. 11-2340 LKK EFB, Dckt. No. 1.*fn1 In that petition, petitioner challenges a 26-years-to-life sentence imposed by the Shasta County Superior Court following plaintiff's conviction of first degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon. On September 12, 2011, petitioner commenced this action by filing a second application, also challenging the 2007 judgment of conviction. See Petition, Dckt. 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. If petitioner wishes to challenge the 2007 judgment of conviction on additional grounds, he must file an amended petition in the action he initially commenced.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case.
Further, it is 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." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to ...