Charles Keller Cooper, Jr v. Los Angeles Sheriff Department et al

Filing 6

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS): COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. CV 18-4050 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS ORDERED that the 2018 case is DISMISSED without prejudice as duplicative. Plaintiff's Request To Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees in the 2018 case (Dkt. No. 2) is denied as moot. (see order for details) Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (hr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-2639-FMO (AGR)
CV 18-4050-FMO (AGR)

Title

Charles Keller Cooper Jr. v. Sgt. Toms, et al.
Charles Keller Cooper Jr. v. LASD Sgt. Brown, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

June 8, 2018

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

In Chambers: COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. CV 18-4050

On May 10, 2018, Plaintiff constructively filed a new civil rights complaint, commencing
case no. CV 18-4050-FMO (AGR) (“the 2018 case”). As the Court noted in a May 29, 2018
order filed in both the 2018 case and in case no. CV 17-2639-FMO (AGR) (“the 2017 case”), the
allegations in the 2018 case’s complaint were remarkably similar to those in the 2017 case’s
complaint. For this reason, and because Plaintiff had hinted at a forthcoming amendment in the
2017 case, the Court ordered him to show cause why it should not close the 2018 case as
duplicative and file the new complaint as a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in the 2017 case.
(Dkt. No. 4 in 2018 case.)
But Plaintiff had already noticed the duplication. On May 24, 2018 – five days before the
Court’s show-cause order – he filed a “request to dismiss a new filing,” expressly indicating that
the new complaint was indeed intended as his FAC in the 2017 case, not as an initial complaint
in a new action. (Dkt. No. 5 in 2018 case.) (On the same date, Plaintiff filed a substantially
identical FAC in the 2017 case. (Dkt. No. 61 in 2017 case.) Thus, there is no need for the Court
to order the 2018 case complaint to be filed as the FAC in the 2017 case.)
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the 2018 case is DISMISSED without prejudice as
duplicative. Plaintiff’s Request To Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees in the 2018 case
(Dkt. No. 2) is denied as moot.
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

vdr

Page 1 of 1