1 JS-6

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JAMES LEWIS APODACA, NO. CV 24-10260-KK (AGR)

12 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT

13 PREJUDICE OF DUPLICATE v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 14 CORPUS

15 STEPHEN SMITH, 16 Respondent. 17

18 I. 19 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 20 On April 1, 2024, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the 21 Southern District of California in Apodaca v. Smith, CV 24-3027 KK (AGR) 22 (“Apodaca I”). The petition in Apodaca I challenged a criminal judgment in the 23 Superior Court for Ventura County, California, which is in the Central District of 24 California. By Order dated April 8, 2024, the Southern District transferred the 25 habeas proceeding to the Central District of California. (Apodaca I, Dkt. No. 3.) 26 In Apodaca I, Respondent filed an Answer and Return on August 28, 2024. 27 (Apodaca I, Dkt. Nos. 15-16.) 28 1 The court, on its own motion, extended the time for Petitioner to file a reply

2 in Apodaca I to November 14, 2024. (Dkt. No. 17.) Petitioner did not file a reply.

3 On November 7, 2024, Petitioner mailed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

4 to the Southern District of California in Apodaca v. Smith, CV 24-10260 KK (AGR) 5 (“Apodaca II”). The petition in Apodaca II is a duplicate copy of the petition in Apodaca I except that the petition in Apodaca II contains two copies of page 9 6 and a new proof of service. (Compare Apodaca II, Dkt. No. 1 with Apodaca I, Dkt. 7 No. 1.) By Order dated November 25, 2024, the Southern District transferred the 8 second habeas proceeding to the Central District of California. (Apodaca II, Dkt. 9 No. 2.) 10 II. 11 DISCUSSION 12 “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions

13 involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against 14 the same defendant.’” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs.,

, 688 15 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). “[I]n assessing whether the second action is 16 duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, 17 as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” Id. at 689. 18 The petition in Apodaca II is clearly a duplicate of the petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus in Apodaca I, which is still pending in this court. The petition in 20 Apodaca II is a duplicate copy of the petition in Apodaca I, including the same 21 cross-outs, except that the petition in Apodaca II contains two copies of page 9 22 and a new proof of service. (Compare Apodaca II, Dkt. No. 1 with Apodaca I, Dkt. 23 No. 1.) The petition in Apodaca II challenges the same criminal judgment in the Superior Court of Ventura County, California, asserts the same grounds for relief, 24 names the same Respondent, and was signed and dated on the same day as the 25 petition in Apodaca I. Therefore, this action is dismissed without prejudice as a 26 duplicate action. Petitioner’s grounds for relief will be adjudicated in Apodaca I. 27

28 1 Hl. 2 ORDER 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this habeas action is dismissed without 4 || prejudice as a duplicate of Apodaca |, CV 24-3027 KK (AGR). The Clerk is 5 | directed to close this case.

paTep: December 3, 2024 8 KENLY KIYA KATO 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28