1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER LESLIE SMITH, Case No. 2:21-cv-05393-GW (AFM) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 MR. G. GUTIERREZ, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner is a federal prisoner serving a sentence imposed by the United States 19 District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. On July 2, 2021, Petitioner filed 20 the current petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The 21 petition does not purport to challenge Petitioner’s conviction or sentence, but instead 22 seeks compassionate release or assignment to home confinement based upon 23 Petitioner’s medical conditions. (ECF 1 at 2-5.) 24 The present petition is duplicative of an earlier-filed petition. See Smith v. 25 Gutierrez, Case No. 2:21-cv-01213-GW (AFM).1 The earlier-filed action is fully 26 1 That petition raised four claims, including claims that (1) Petitioner is entitled to compassionate 27 release due to skin cancer and actinic keratosis, conditions for which he has not been treated while incarcerated; and (2) Petitioner is entitled to compassionate release because he has various health 28 1 | briefed, and a report and recommendation has been issued recommending that the 2 || petition be dismissed without prejudice. Because this later-filed petition 1s 3 || duplicative of the currently pending petition, the Court exercises its discretion to 4 || dismiss the later petition without prejudice. See Adams vy. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 5 || 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court has discretion to dismiss a 6 || duplicative later-filed action), overruled on other grounds, Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 7 || U.S. 880, 904 (2008); Melvin v. United States, 2016 WL 3125703, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 8 || May 31, 2016) (dismissing later-filed petition as duplicative and observing that 9 || petitioner’s “initiation of identical habeas actions in two different districts is wholly 10 || antithetical to principles of judicial economy’); see generally Slack v. McDaniel, 529 11 | U.S. 473, 478 (2000) (stating that federal courts retain broad discretion to control 12 || their dockets and “prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation’’). 13 ORDER 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition is dismissed without 15 || prejudice. 16 17 || DATED: August 3, 2021 1 Aung. 19 GEORGE H. WU 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28