1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS ARTEAGA, Case No. 2:19-cv-07305-ODW (AFM) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 KEN CLARK, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to

in the United States District Court for the Eastern 20 District of California. The case was subsequently transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 21 5.) The petition challenges Petitioner’s conviction of two counts of attempted murder 22 in Los Angeles County Superior Court case number LA081087. (ECF No. 1.) It raises 23 two grounds for relief: (1) the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury regarding lesser 24 offenses deprived Petitioner of his constitutional rights; and (2) Petitioner’s case 25 should be remanded to the trial court for resentencing pursuant to California Senate 26 Bill 620. (ECF No. 1 at 6, 8 (referring to ¶ 9(f) of the petition as setting out the two 27 grounds).) 28 1 The present petition is duplicative of an earlier-filed petition in Arteaga v. 2 || Clark, Case No. 2:19-cv-07226-ODW (AFM).' Both petitions challenge the same 3 || conviction and sentence, and both petitions raise the same two grounds for relief. 4 || (See ECF No. 1 at 5 in case no. 2:19-cv-07226-ODW(AFM).) The earlier-filed action 5 || is fully briefed: Respondent has filed an answer addressing the merits of Petitioner’s 6 || claims, and Petitioner has filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 8 & 10 in Case No. 2:19-cv-07226- 7 || ODW(AFM).) 8 Because this later-filed petition is duplicative of the petition currently pending 9 || in case no. 2:19-cv-07226-ODW(AFM), the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss 10 || the later petition without prejudice. See Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 11 || F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court has discretion to dismiss a duplicative 12 || later-filed action), overruled on other grounds, Taylor v. Sturgell,

, 904 13 || (2008); Melvin v. United States,

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2016) 14 || (dismissing later-filed petition as duplicative and observing that petitioner’s 15 || “initiation of identical habeas actions in two different districts 1s wholly antithetical 16 || to principles of judicial economy”); see generally Slack v. McDaniel,

, 17 || 478 (2000) (stating that federal courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets 18 || and “prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation’). 19 ORDER 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the current petition is dismissed without 21 || prejudice as duplicative of case no. 2:19-cv-07226-ODW(AFM). 22 NN “ 23 || DATED: February 5, 2020 Chey 24 25 -_OTISD. WRIGHT, I UNITED STATES DISTICT JUDGE

27 |) ——— SSS 28 t Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court takes judicial notice of the record and files in Petitioner’s earlier case filed in this District.