Christopher Lancaster v. Warden Richard B. Ives et al

Filing 15

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO ADD WARDEN IVES AS A DEFENDANT IN CASE NO. EDCV 17-13-JAK(AGR); and (2) DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CASE NO. EDCV 17-927 AS DUPLICATIVE by Judge John A. Kronstadt. The Clerk is directed to file Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint in both Case No. EDCV 17-13 and Case No. EDCV 17-927. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Case No. 17-927 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as duplicative of Case No. EDCV 17-13 JAK (AGR) now that Ives is a defendant in the earlier- filed case. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See Order for Further Details) (kl)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. EDCV 17-0013-JAK (AGR) EDCV 17-0927-JAK (AGR) Title Christopher Lancaster v. Lt. Gabby, et al. Christopher Lancaster v. Warden Richard Ives, et al. Present: The Honorable Date September 5, 2017 John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge Andrea Keifer n/a n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None None Proceedings: In Chambers: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO ADD WARDEN IVES AS A DEFENDANT IN CASE NO. EDCV 17-13-JAK (AGR); and (2) DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CASE NO. EDCV 17-927 AS DUPLICATIVE Procedural History On January 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint in Case No. EDCV 17-13-JAK (AGR) in this court. He alleged various violations while housed at USP-Victorville. Warden Richard B. Ives was not named as a defendant. On December 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a nearly identical complaint in the Southern District of California, which transferred the action to this court on May 12, 2017. The case was assigned Case No. EDCV 17-927-JAK (AGR). The complaint covered the same events, asserted the same claims and sought the same compensatory damages as the complaint in EDCV 17-13. The one notable difference was that Warden Richard B. Ives was named as a defendant. Minute Order Dated May 19, 2017 and Plaintiff’s Response On May 19, 2017, the magistrate judge issued a minute order that recited the procedural history and gave Plaintiff two options: 1. If Plaintiff did not wish to add Ives as a defendant in Case No. EDCV 17-13, Plaintiff was required to file a Notice stating that he did not wish to add Ives as a defendant. 2. If Plaintiff wished to add Ives as a defendant in Case No. EDCV 17-13, Plaintiff was required to file a First Amended Complaint naming Ives as a defendant and adding allegations as to why he should be liable for the various violations alleged. The court would then dismiss without prejudice Case No. EDCV 17-927 as wholly duplicative of Case No. EDCV 17-13. CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. EDCV 17-0013-JAK (AGR) EDCV 17-0927-JAK (AGR) Date Title September 5, 2017 Christopher Lancaster v. Lt. Gabby, et al. Christopher Lancaster v. Warden Richard Ives, et al. On June 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff states that he simply forgot to add Richard B. Ives as a defendant (presumably in Case No. EDCV 17-13), and also wishes to delete his request for nominal damages. Plaintiff requested that the court grant leave to file an amended complaint. Order The Clerk is directed to file Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint in both Case No. EDCV 17-13 and Case No. EDCV 17-927. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to add Defendant Richard B. Ives as a defendant in Case No. EDCV 17-13 is GRANTED on the following terms and conditions: 1. Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint within 30 days after the entry of this order that adds Richard B. Ives as a defendant. The First Amended Complaint must bear the docket number EDCV 17-13-JAK (AGR), be labeled “First Amended Complaint”; and be complete in and of itself without reference to the original complaint or any other pleading, attachment or document. Local Rule 15-2. Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint supersedes the original complaint and becomes the operative complaint. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a blank Central District civil rights complaint form and a copy of the complaint in EDCV 17-927-JAK (AGR). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Case No. 17-927 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as duplicative of Case No. EDCV 17-13 JAK (AGR) now that Ives is a defendant in the earlier-filed case. See Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 692 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding district court could opt to dismiss without prejudice later-filed complaint as duplicative of pending complaint in the interest of judicial economy and comprehensive disposition of litigation), overruled in part on other grounds, Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891 n.3 (2008). Initials of Preparer CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL ak Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?