Bowba v. Lyons et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ABDERRAHMANE BOWBA,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD LYONS et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-251
Honorable Robert J. Jonker
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently
detained at the North Lake Processing Center located in Baldwin, Lake County, Michigan, initiated
this action by filing a counseled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Pet., ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Discussion
I. Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, he challenges the lawfulness of his current detention and
asks the Court to, inter alia, assume jurisdiction over this matter and issue a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 either ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or ordering
Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to satisfy the requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No.
1, PageID.14–15.)
In an order entered on January 30, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
Case 1:26-cv-00251-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/11/26 Page 1
of 3

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on February 4, 2026,
(ECF No. 5), and Petitioner filed his reply on February 5, 2026, (ECF No. 6).
II. Duplicative Petition
A court must promptly order an answer or grant the writ under § 2241, “unless it appears
from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
After undertaking the review required by § 2243, the Court concludes that the petition is properly
dismissed without prejudice because the present petition is duplicative of the petition he filed in
Bowba v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1844 (W.D. Mich.)
“Federal courts do . . . retain broad powers to prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation.”
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). Parties generally have “no right to maintain two
separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against
the same defendants.” Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977). Accordingly, as part
of its inherent power to administer its docket, a district court may dismiss a suit that is duplicative
of another federal court suit. See Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S.
800, 817 (1976); Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Serv., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007); Missouri
v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 259 F.3d 949, 953-54 (8th Cir. 2001); Curtis v. Citibank,
N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138–39 (2d Cir. 2000); Smith v. S.E.C., 129 F.3d 356, 361 (6th Cir. 1997).
The power to dismiss a duplicative lawsuit is meant to foster judicial economy and the
“comprehensive disposition of litigation,” Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342
U.S. 180, 183 (1952), and protect parties from “the vexation of concurrent litigation over the same
subject matter.” Adam v. Jacobs, 950 F.2d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 1991).
An action is duplicative and subject to dismissal if the claims, parties and available relief
do not significantly differ from an earlier-filed action. See Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d
221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993). Although actions may not “significantly differ,” they need not be
Case 1:26-cv-00251-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/11/26 Page 2
of 3

3
identical. Courts focus on the substance of the complaint, or in this case the petition. See, e.g.
Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that a complaint was duplicative
although different defendants were named because it “repeat[ed] the same factual allegations”
asserted in the earlier case). Considering the substantial identity between the legal claims, factual
allegations, temporal circumstances and relief sought in the present petition and in Bowba v.
Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1844 (W.D. Mich.), the Court concludes that the present action is
duplicative. Therefore, pursuant to the Court's inherent power, upon the review required by 28
U.S.C. § 2243, this action will be dismissed without prejudice on the grounds that it is duplicative
and, therefore, frivolous.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing the petition
without prejudice.
Dated: February 11, 2026 /s/ Robert J. Jonker
Robert J. Jonker
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00251-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/11/26 Page 3
of 3