Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On October 2, 2026, Magomed Soltakhanov filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The action was assigned Case No. ED CV 26-5828 FMO (JDE). Soltakhanov alleged that his re-detention by immigration officials violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and he named the Warden of the Adelanto ICE Processing Center and other officials as respondents.
The court observed that the instant petition appeared identical to a petition Soltakhanov had filed two days earlier, on September 30, 2026, in Case No. 26-5801, and that the earlier petition was still pending. Both actions challenged the lawfulness of his immigration detention beginning on September 17, 2026, so the later filing raised the same parties and the same issue as the first.
The later action's docket also contained a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation at Document No. 12. Rather than adopt or reject that recommendation on the merits, the district judge addressed it in the final order by vacating it.
The Court’s Holding
The court applied the first-to-file rule, a generally recognized doctrine of federal comity that permits a district court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another court of concurrent jurisdiction. Citing Pacesetter Systems, Olin Corp., and Gatlin, the court explained that the rule may be applied where related cases are pending before two judges of the same district, and that it may be considered on the court's own initiative. Under Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Shalala, the second court has discretion to transfer, stay, or dismiss the second case in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy.
The court examined the three factors identified in Scholl v. Mnuchin: the chronology of the two actions, the similarity of the parties involved, and the similarity of the issues at stake. It found all three threshold factors satisfied. The instant action was filed second, albeit by only two days, and the court noted that the rule can apply even to actions filed hours apart. The two actions involved the same parties and raised the same issue, namely the lawfulness of Soltakhanov's immigration detention beginning on September 17, 2026. The court therefore concluded that the instant action was identical to the first-filed action in Case No. 26-5801.
Accordingly, the court applied the first-to-file rule and, in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy, ordered that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Document No. 12) be vacated and that the above-captioned action be dismissed without prejudice. The court did not decide whether Soltakhanov's re-detention violated due process; the dismissal was procedural, concerned only the duplicate later action, and left the earlier petition in Case No. 26-5801 pending.
Key Takeaways
- A federal court may apply the first-to-file rule on its own initiative to duplicate actions pending before different judges of the same district.
- The three factors—chronology, similarity of the parties, and similarity of the issues—were all satisfied even though the second petition was filed only two days after the first.
- The second court has discretion to transfer, stay, or dismiss the later case in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy.
- The court vacated the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in the duplicate action rather than ruling on it.
- The action was dismissed without prejudice, so the underlying due process challenge to the immigration detention was not resolved.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how the first-to-file rule prevents duplicative litigation and conserves judicial resources, including when a habeas petitioner files overlapping Section 2241 petitions in the same district. The disposition was procedural rather than a ruling on the constitutional merits of Soltakhanov's detention claim, and it shows that comity-based dismissal can resolve a second case without any adjudication of the underlying claim.
Because the dismissal was without prejudice and the earlier petition in Case No. 26-5801 remained pending, the order should not be read as a final determination that Soltakhanov's detention was lawful or unlawful. It also demonstrates that a report and recommendation in a duplicate action need not be adjudicated once the court elects to dismiss that action under the first-to-file rule.