United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
31, 2019, the Court received and filed Petitioner Christian
Diaz's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. (“1408 Petition, ” ECF No.
1.) On the same date, the Court received in a different
envelope and filed a virtually identical copy of the 1408
Petition, which copy was processed as a case-initiating
petition separate from the 1408 Petition. See
Petition, Diaz v. Frauenheim, No.
5:19-cv-01415-PA-GJS, ECF Nos. 1 to 1-5 (C.D. Cal. filed July
31, 2019) (“1415 Petition”). In other words,
these two copies of the same petition began parallel
proceedings in two separate cases.
September 20, 2019, Respondent Scott Frauenheim filed a
motion to dismiss this action as duplicative of the
concurrently filed action. (ECF No. 9.) Petitioner did not
respond to the Motion within the time permitted for response.
Meanwhile, in the parallel litigation, Petitioner responded
to the Court's order to show cause why the 1415 Petition
should not be dismissed as untimely. Response to: Possible
Dismissal for Untimeliness, Diaz v. Frauenheim, No.
5:19-cv-01415-PA-GJS, ECF No. 5 (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 9,
courts “retain broad powers to prevent duplicative or
unnecessary litigation” and to control their dockets.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000); see
also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31
(1962). “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 v. Cal. Dep't of
Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d
Cir.1977) (en banc)). “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.” Id. The test for determining whether
a suit is duplicative borrows from the test for claim
preclusion: “we examine whether the causes of action
and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the
action, are the same.” Id. at 689.
1408 Petition and the 1415 Petition are duplicative of one
another because they are virtually identical; they contain the
same causes of action, relief sought, and parties. Nothing in
the Court's records indicate that Petitioner intended to
initiate two actions by submitting two copies of his habeas
petition to the Court; instead, the Court presumes that the
duplicate copy was submitted in an effort to comply with the
Court's Local Rules. See CD. Cal. L.R. 11-4.1.2
(“All paper documents filed manually with the Clerk,
including all exhibits to documents, must be accompanied by
one clear, conformed, and legible copy for the use of the
judge.”). Accordingly, maintaining two parallel cases
does not seem to be Petitioner's intent. Moreover,
Petitioner's interests align with those of Respondent and
the Court, as all will save time and resources by litigating
Petitioner's claims together at once. Proceeding in one
action would reduce confusion and the likelihood of
incongruous procedural and substantive decisions by the two
Magistrate Judges to whom the two cases were referred. Given
that Petitioner has indicated an intent to prosecute the 1415
Petition by responding to the Court's order to show cause
in that action, closing this case and proceeding in the
parallel case is appropriate.
the equities, the Court determines that this action should be
dismissed in favor of the concurrently-filed action, No.
5:19-cv-01415-PA-GJS. Consequently, this action is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to litigating
the habeas petition in the concurrently-filed action.
Respondent's motion to dismiss is DENIED
IS SO ORDERED.
A. AUDERO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
 A subsequent filing from Petitioner, a
letter directed to the Clerk of the Court requesting an
extension of time, initiated a third case. Request for
Extension of Time for Federal Habeas Corpus, Diaz v.
Frauenheim, No. 5:19-cv-01441-PA-GJS (C.D. Cal. filed
Aug. 2, 2019).
 The copy of the 1408 Petition uploaded
to the Court's electronic case management system omits a
page included in the 1415 Petition and in the original 1408
Petition on file with the Court. See ...