ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, Distict Judge.

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case was subsequently transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 5.) The petition challenges Petitioner's conviction of two counts of attempted murder in Los Angeles County Superior Court case number LA081087. (ECF No. 1.) It raises two grounds for relief: (1) the trial court's failure to instruct the jury regarding lesser offenses deprived Petitioner of his constitutional rights; and (2) Petitioner's case should be remanded to the trial court for resentencing pursuant to California Senate Bill 620. (ECF No. 1 at 6, 8 (referring to ¶ 9(f) of the petition as setting out the two grounds).)

The present petition is duplicative of an earlier-filed petition in Arteaga v. Clark, Case No. 2:19-cv-07226-ODW (AFM).1 Both petitions challenge the same conviction and sentence, and both petitions raise the same two grounds for relief. (See ECF No. 1 at 5 in case no. 2:19-cv-07226-ODW(AFM).) The earlier-filed action is fully briefed: Respondent has filed an answer addressing the merits of Petitioner's claims, and Petitioner has filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 8 & 10 in Case No. 2:19-cv-07226-ODW(AFM).)

Because this later-filed petition is duplicative of the petition currently pending in case no. 2:19-cv-07226-ODW(AFM), the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss the later petition without prejudice. See Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court has discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action), overruled on other grounds, Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008); Melvin v. United States, 2016 WL 3125703, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2016) (dismissing later-filed petition as duplicative and observing that petitioner's "initiation of identical habeas actions in two different districts is wholly antithetical to principles of judicial economy"); see generally Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000) (stating that federal courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and "prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation").

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the current petition is dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of case no. 2:19-cv-07226-ODW(AFM).