Cortez Benavides v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
GRACE ESTEPHANIA CORTEZ
BENAVIDES,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1438
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
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 pro se 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 dismiss 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, originally filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of her 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.2.)
Case 1:26-cv-01438-PLM-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/06/26 Page 1
of 3

2
On May 1, 2026, the Eastern District of Michigan transferred this matter to this Court.
(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 Petitioner
filed in Cortez Benavides v. Raycraft, No. 1:26-cv-563 (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 another 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 identical.
Case 1:26-cv-01438-PLM-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/06/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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 Cortez Benavides v.
Raycraft, No. 1:26-cv-563 (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: 	May 6, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01438-PLM-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/06/26 Page 3
of 3