Gonzalez-Castillo v. Barr

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 OSCAR OSWALDO Case No. 2:21-cv-00144-RFB-DJA GONZALEZ-CASTILLO, [6] Petitioner, ORDER [7] v. [8] WILLIAM P. BARR, et al., [9] Respondents. [10] 11 Petitioner Oscar Oswaldo Gonzalez-Castillo, a federal immigration detainee, has filed a 12 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1-1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , seeking review of his 13 immigration proceedings. This habeas matter is before the Court on Gonzalez-Castillo’s Motion 14 and Declaration to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 1) as well as initial review of the 15 petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.1 For the reasons discussed 16 below, Gonzalez-Castillo’s petition is dismissed without prejudice as duplicative. 17 Gonzalez-Castillo is a native and citizen of El Salvador. ECF No. 1-1 at 4. He was taken 18 into custody by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) division of the 19 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) in January 2020. Id. at 5–6. Gonzalez-Castillo 20 applied for asylum and withholding of removal, but an immigration judge (“IJ”) denied his request. [21] Id. at 6 . The petition alleges that the IJ’s decision is clearly erroneous and Gonzalez-Castillo has 22 appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Id. Gonzalez-Castillo further 23 alleges that DHS has violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Eighth Amendment 24 and Due Process Clause of the Unites States Constitution by refusing to release him on bond. Id. 25 Under Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas petition and order a [26] 27 1 All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Gonzalez-Castillo filed the petition under 28 U.S.C. 28 § 2241; however, the Court will apply the Rules in this action as authorized by Habeas Rule 1(b). 1 response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Valdez v. 2 Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule requires courts to screen and dismiss 3 petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by 4 procedural defects. Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. 5 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). As a general matter, duplicative 6 litigation is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C § 1915. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 , 7 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming that duplicative litigation is “an independent ground for 8 dismissal”); Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F.2d 1421, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988). In determining whether 9 a later-filed action is duplicative, the court examines “whether the causes of action and relief 10 sought, as well as the parties or privities to the action, are the same.” Adams v. California, 487 11 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 12 (2008). Dismissal of a duplicative lawsuit “promotes judicial economy and the comprehensive 13 disposition of litigation.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 692–93. 14 Court records show that Gonzalez-Castillo filed an identical petition in an earlier case, 15 Gonzalez-Castillo v. Barr, 2:21-cv-00140-KJD-EJY, and that petition is currently pending before 16 a different district judge. He mailed one petition to the courthouse in Las Vegas and a duplicative 17 petition to the Reno courthouse. Compare 2:21-cv-00140-KJD-EJY, ECF No. 1 at 10, with 2:2118 cv-00144-RFB-DJA, ECF No. 1-4. The petition in this case is therefore duplicative of that already 19 pending petition and serves no legitimate purpose. Any claims Gonzalez-Castillo wishes to pursue 20 regarding his immigration detention must be asserted, if at all, via the petition in Case No. 2:2121 cv-00140-KJD-EJY. The Court thus dismisses the instant petition without prejudice as 22 duplicative. 23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 24 1. Petitioner Oscar Oswaldo Gonzalez-Castillo’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 25 (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as duplicative. 26 2. A certificate of appealability is DENIED, as jurists of reason would not find dismissal 27 of the petition to be debatable or wrong. 28 /// 1 3. Petitioner's Motion and Declaration to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (‘IFP”) □□□□ 2 No. 1) is DENIED as moot. 3 4. The Clerk of Court is instructed to ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT, dismissing this action 4 without prejudice, and CLOSE THIS CASE. [5] 6 DATED this 3 day of February, 2021. [7] 9 UNITED SPAFES-PTSTRICT JUDGE