2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JACOB A. WOODS, Case No. 2:25-cv-01779-MMD-MDC

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8 RONALD OLIVER, et al., 9 Respondent. 10 11 Pro se Petitioner Jacob A. Woods commenced this habeas action by filing an 12 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1 (“IFP Application”)) and Motion for 13 Counsel (ECF No. 1-1 (“Motion”)). For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses 14 this matter without prejudice as duplicative and instructs the Clerk of the Court to transfer 15 Woods’s IFP Application and Motion to an earlier filed habeas case. 16 Woods did not file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this matter. On 17 September 18, 2025, Woods filed a federal habeas petition in an earlier case, Woods v. 18 Oliver, Case No. 2:25-cv-1765-APG-EJY. The Court instructed Woods to file an IFP 19 application (ECF No. 3) and issued an order to show cause why his petition should not 20 be dismissed as partially unexhausted (ECF No. 7). 21 Because Woods has not filed a petition in the earlier case, it appears his IFP 22 Application and Motion were filed in a new case in error. This case is therefore duplicative. 23 As a general matter, duplicative litigation is subject to dismissal under

. 24 See Cato v. United States,

, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming that 25 duplicative litigation is “an independent ground for dismissal”); Hernandez v. Denton, 861

, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988). Dismissal of a duplicative lawsuit “promotes judicial 27 economy and the comprehensive disposition of litigation.” Adams v. California,

684, 692 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted), overruled in part on other grounds by 1 || Taylor v. Sturgell,

(2008). 2 Accordingly, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice as duplicative. Any 3 || federal habeas claims Woods wishes to pursue challenging the same state court 4 || conviction must be asserted, if at all, in Case No: 2:25-cv-1765-APG-EJY. 5 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice. 6 The Clerk of Court is directed to file Petitioner's Application to Proceed In Forma 7 || Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and Motion for Counsel (ECF No. 1-1) is his earlier filed case, Case 8 || No: 2:25-cv-1765-APG-EJY, enter final judgment accordingly, and close this case. 9 The Clerk of the Court is further directed to make informal electronic service upon 10 || Respondents by adding Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford as counsel for the 11 || respondents and to provide Respondents an electronic copy of all items previously filed 12 || in this case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing to the office of the AG only. No 13 || response is required from Respondents other than to respond to any orders of a reviewing 14 || court. 15 DATED THIS 26" Day of September 2025.

17 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28