Mattox v. Castrol, et al.

Filing 20

DISMISSAL ORDER signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 5/3/2013. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN DEAN MATTOX,
Case No. 1:10-cv-01641-RRB
Plaintiff,
vs.
DISMISSAL ORDER
SGT. CASTROL, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff

John

Dean

Mattox,

a

California

State

prisoner

appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against various officials and employees of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”).
Mattox’s claims arose from an incident that occurred during his
incarceration at the North Kern State Prison (“NKSP”), and a
deliberate indifference claim against dental/medical personnel
following his transfer to Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”).1
In its initial screening of the Complaint, this Court noted it
appeared that this action was duplicative of an earlier action
1

In his Complaint, Mattox named eleven individuals in
addition to Sgt. Castrol:
CCII Martinez; Lt. Marquez;
Dr. Alexander, D.D.S.; Capt. Steadman; Lt. Marquez; Sgt. M.T.
Ervan; CCI Harris; Dr, Hermon D.D.S.; Dr. Alexander, D.D.S.; Dr. F.
Igbinoza, M.D.; Paco Mendoza; as well as twelve, or more, John and
Jane Does alleged to be responsible dental/medical personnel at
either NKSP or PVSP.
DISMISSAL ORDER
Mattox v. Castro, et al., 1:10–cv-01641-RRB - 1

filed in this Court, Mattox v. Martinez, 1:08-cv-01265-FRZ (“Mattox
I”). The Court further noting that it did not appear that there was
any reason that Mattox could not bring the claims raised in this
action in Mattox I, entered its Order to Show Cause why the
Complaint should not be dismissed as duplicative of Mattox I.2
Mattox filed his Response and an Amended Complaint.3
In responding, Mattox appears to attempt to cure the defects
found in Mattox I that he attempts to resurrect in this action.
Mattox’s response does not, however, address the defect in this
action, i.e., that it is duplicative of Mattox I. The relief Mattox
may be entitled to, if any, will be determined in Mattox I. As
explained in the Order to Show Cause, Mattox is not entitled to
bring a second action raising the same claims as were raised or
could have been raised in Mattox I.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED without
leave to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of May, 2013.
S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Docket 17.

3

Dockets 18, 19.

DISMISSAL ORDER
Mattox v. Castro, et al., 1:10–cv-01641-RRB - 2