Dasenbrock v. Kings County et al

Filing 9

ORDER dismissing case 1:11-cv-1917-GSA-pc as duplicative of this case signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/8/2011. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBIN DASENBROCK, 12 13 14 1:11-cv-01917-GSA-PC Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE AS DUPLICATIVE OF CASE 1:11-CV-01884DLB-PC (Doc. 1.) v. KINGS COUNTY, et al., ORDER VACATING ORDER DIRECTING CDCR TO COLLECT FILING FEE PAYMENTS FOR THIS ACTION (Doc. 5.) 15 Defendants. 16 17 ORDER FOR CLERK TO ENTER THIS ORDER ON THE DOCKET FOR CASE 1:11-CV-01884-DLB-PC 18 / 19 20 Robin Dasenbrock (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was commenced by civil 22 complaint on November 17, 2011. (Doc. 1.) On November 22, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff 23 leave to proceed in forma pauperis and entered an order directing the California Department of 24 Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to deduct payment from Plaintiff’s prison trust account 25 for the $350.00 filing fee for this action. (Doc. 5.) 26 On December 2, 2011, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action, and 27 no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 7.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of 28 the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all 1 1 proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule 2 Appendix A(k)(3). 3 On December 2, 2011, Plaintiff notified the Court that the complaint for this action is 4 duplicative of the complaint in case 1:11-cv–01884-DLB-PC. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff asserts that he 5 submitted two copies of the same complaint to the Court, in separate envelopes, and the Court 6 opened two separate cases and assigned two case numbers for the same action. Plaintiff requests that 7 this error be resolved before he is subject to orders requiring him to pay two $350.00 filing fees. 8 A review of the complaints filed in Plaintiff’s two actions reveals that the two complaints are 9 identical, except that the exhibits to the complaints are arranged in different page order and vary by 10 one page.1 Good cause appearing, the present action, 1:11-cv-01917-GSA-PC, shall be dismissed 11 as duplicative, and Plaintiff shall proceed with case 1:11-cv–01884-DLB-PC. In addition, the Court 12 shall vacate its order directing the CDCR to deduct the filing fee for this case, 1:11-cv-01917-GSA- 13 PC, from Plaintiff’s prison trust account. 14 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. This action is DISMISSED as duplicative of case 1:11-cv–01884-DLB-PC; 16 2. The Court’s order of November 15, 2011 in this case, 1:11-cv-01917-GSA-PC, 17 which directed the CDCR to make payments to the Court from Plaintiff’s prison trust 18 account for payment of the filing fee for this case, 1:11-cv-01917-GSA-PC, is 19 VACATED; and 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to: 21 (1) CLOSE this case; 22 (2) ENTER this order on the docket for case 1:11-cv–01884-DLB-PC; 23 (3) SERVE a copy of this order on: 24 (i) the Director of the CDCR; and 25 1 26 27 28 The Clerk scanned 296 pages for the complaint and exhibits in case 1:11-cv-01884-DLB-PC, whereas 297 pages were scanned for the complaint and exhibits in case 1:11-cv-01997-GSA-PC. However, the one hundred seventy-eight pages of the complaint itself are identical in both cases. Plaintiff is advised that the court looks to the factual allegations contained in Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether or not Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983. Exhibits are not necessary in the federal system of notice pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 2 1 (ii) 2 the Financial Department, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij December 8, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?