McCoy v. Kelso et al

Filing 13

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE, signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 3/6/2015. Show Cause Response due by 4/10/2015. (Marrujo, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOSEPH RAYMOND McCOY,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00518-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
vs.
J. CLARK KELSO, Receiver, et al.,
Defendants.

At Docket 12 Joseph Raymond McCoy, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in
forma pauperis, has moved for an extension of time within which to file an Amended
Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several officials of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In his motion McCoy refers to another action he has
pending in this Court, McCoy v. Gonzales, et. al., 1:12-cv-00983-AWI-DLB (“McCoy I”).
The Court takes judicial notice of the pleadings and papers in that case. 1
In screening this action, this Court dismissed all claims and defendants except
McCoy’s medical deliberate indifference claim against A. Enenmoh (Chief Medical Officer),
Angel Gonzales (Medical Officer), C. Stronach (R.N.), and L. Peters (Physician’s
Assistant). In screening McCoy I, the Court dismissed the claims against A. Enenmoh, but

1

Fed. R. Evid. 201; see United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
McCoy v. Kelso, 1:14-cv-00518-RRB – 1

permitted McCoy to proceed against Gonzales, and Stronach.2 McCoy elected to proceed
on the cognizable claims.3
A comparison of the issues raise in McCoy I to the Complaint in this cases shows
that McCoy has brought an action against essentially the same Defendants, arising out of
the same facts alleged in this action. The record in McCoy 1 reflects that pending in that
action is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment,4 which McCoy has opposed.5
Defendant’s reply is due March 23, 2015.6 McCoy’s request for additional time is
predicated upon the time and effort he was required to devote in opposing summary
judgment in McCoy I.
This Court first examines whether the causes of action in McCoy’s two suits are
identical. In doing this, the Court uses the same transaction test used in the context of
claim preclusion, i.e., the events are related to the same set facts and could be
conveniently tied together.7 In applying the transaction test, this Court examines four
criteria:
(1) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be
destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2) whether
substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether

2
3

McCoy I, Docket 18.
McCoy I, Docket 20.

4

McCoy I, Docket 65.

5

McCoy I, Docket 77.

6

McCoy I, Docket 79.

7

Adams v. Calif. Dept. of Heath Svcs., 487 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007) (overruled
on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008)).
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
McCoy v. Kelso, 1:14-cv-00518-RRB – 2

the two suits involve infringement of the same right; and (4) whether the two
suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.8
The fourth of these is the most important.9
In this case it is clear that the two actions share a common transactional nucleus of
facts. The claims in both cases relate to the same set of facts and form a convenient trial
unit because they disclose a cohesive narrative of the acts and omissions of the agents
of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
With respect to the parties, the claims as against Enenmoh, Gonzales, and
Stronach were, or will, be finally resolved in McCoy I. With respect to L. Peters this Court
notes that in his original Complaint in McCoy I McCoy named L. Peters as a defendant.10
However, in his Amended Complaint in McCoy I McCoy omitted L. Peters as a defendant.11
By omitting Peters as a defendant in his Amended Complaint in McCoy I McCoy essentially
abandoned any claim he might have had against Peters.12 This Court is not inclined to
allow McCoy to circumvent the effect of his voluntary dismissal of his claims against Peters
by allowing him to bring this successive action.13

8

Id. (quoting Western Sys., Inc. v. Ulloa , 958 F.2d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 1992)).

9

Id.

10

McCoy I, Docket 1.

11

McCoy I, Docket 17.

12

See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)
(recognizing “the general rule . . . that an amended complaint supercedes the original
complaint and renders it without legal effect”)
13

See Stewart v. U. S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that
claim preclusion “prohibits lawsuits on any claims that were raised or could have been
raised in a prior action” (citation and internal quottion marks omitted)).
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
McCoy v. Kelso, 1:14-cv-00518-RRB – 3

Accordingly, on before April 10, 2015, Plaintiff must show cause why this action
should not be DISMISSED.
In the event that this action is not dismissed, the Court will grant Plaintiff a
reasonable time within which to file an Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff’s Request for Extension of Time at Docket 12 is DENIED as moot.
In the event Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order within the time specified,
or such later time as the Court may order, a judgment of dismissal may be entered
without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of March, 2015.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
McCoy v. Kelso, 1:14-cv-00518-RRB – 4