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., 487 F.3d 684, 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