Christopher Leslie Smith v. G Gutierrez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LESLIE SMITH, Case No. 2:21-cv-05393-GW (AFM) Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

MR. G. GUTIERREZ, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner is a federal prisoner serving a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. On July 2, 2021, Petitioner filed the current petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition does not purport to challenge Petitioner’s conviction or sentence, but instead seeks compassionate release or assignment to home confinement based upon Petitioner’s medical conditions. (ECF 1 at 2-5.)

The present petition is duplicative of an earlier-filed petition. See Smith v. Gutierrez, Case No. 2:21-cv-01213-GW (AFM).1 The earlier-filed action is fully That petition raised four claims, including claims that (1) Petitioner is entitled to compassionate release due to skin cancer and actinic keratosis, conditions for which he has not been treated while incarcerated; and (2) Petitioner is entitled to compassionate release because he has various health briefed, and a report and recommendation has been issued recommending that the petition be dismissed without prejudice. Because this later-filed petition 1s duplicative of the currently pending petition, the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss the later petition without prejudice. See Adams vy. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court has discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action), overruled on other grounds, Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008); Melvin v. United States, 2016 WL 3125703, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2016) (dismissing later-filed petition as duplicative and observing that petitioner’s “initiation of identical habeas actions in two different districts is wholly antithetical to principles of judicial economy’); see generally Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000) (stating that federal courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and “prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation’’).

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: August 3, 2021

Aung.

GEORGE H. WU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE