1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ODIN NORDHEIM, Case No. 3:25-cv-06451-JSC

8 Plaintiff, DISMISSAL ORDER v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 16 10 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff, who is representing himself, filed this immigration action on July 31, 2025, 14 under the Administrative Procedures Act,

, seeking a determination regarding his 15 pending asylum application. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 8, 14.) Since filing the action, Plaintiff has submitted 16 several motions, including a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking an order prohibiting 17 Immigration and Customs Enforcement from arresting or detaining him at his next appearance at 18 Immigration Court on October 29, 2025. (Dkt. No. 11.) After it came to the Court’s attention 19 Plaintiff had filed another action just shortly before filing this action, and that the earlier-filed 20 action likewise seeks a determination regarding his pending asylum application, see Nordheim v. 21 USCIS, No. 25-4701-TLT, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this action should 22 not be dismissed as duplicative of the earlier-filed action. (Dkt. No. 16.) Having considered both 23 parties’ responses to the Order to Show Cause, the Court DISMISSES this action as duplicative. 24 (Dkt. Nos. 17, 31, 32.) 25 Federal courts “retain broad powers to prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation.” Slack 26 v. McDaniel,

(2000); see also Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

(1936) 27 (courts have the inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with 1 right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the 2 same court and against the same defendant.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs.,

, 3 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled in part on other grounds by, Taylor v. Sturgell,

4 |} (2008). Rather, a plaintiff is “required to bring at one time all of the claims against a party or 5 || privies relating to the same transaction or event.” Jd. at 693. District courts thus have discretion to 6 || dismiss a “duplicative complaint with prejudice and preventing [the plaintiff] from fragmenting a 7 single cause of action and litigating piecemeal the issues which could have been resolved in one 8 action.” Id. at 694 (cleaned up); see also Woodson v. Barron, No, 22-cv-00075 DMG (GJS), 2022 9 |} WL 618972, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022) (dismissing second of “two separate, but identical, 10 || actions” in the “interests of judicial economy” and collecting cases discussing). 11 This action is duplicative of the earlier-filed action. Although Plaintiff has (without leave 12 of court) filed several different iterations of the complaint, the operative version and all g 13 subsequent versions seek to compel United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 14 (“USCIS”), which is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, to adjudicate his 3 15 Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal. (Dkt. No. | at 5-6; Dkt. No. a 16 14 at 3-4; Dkt. No. 29 at JJ 1-3, 12-15, 22-26.) This is the same relief Plaintiff sought in the

17 earlier-filed action, Case No. 25-4701 TLT. (No. 25-4701, Dkt. No. 1 at 4; Dkt. No. 45 at 2-3, 5.) 18 || Further, Plaintiffs claims for relief have already been adjudicated in this earlier-filed action. (No. 19 25-4701, Dkt. No. 45 (dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on mootness as the 20 asylum application has been adjudicated)). Accordingly, in the interests of judicial economy, this 21 action will be dismissed on the ground that it is duplicative of the parties and claims at issue Case 22 || No. 25-4701. 23 All pending motions are terminated as moot. 24 The Court will enter separate judgment. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: October 9, 2025 ie Sut D JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 28 United States District Judge