Pickering v. Clark et al
Filing
4
ORDER for Clerk to LODGE the Complaint in this Action as a Third Amended Complaint in Case 1:11-cv-00937-LJO-DLB(PC); ORDER for Clerk to Administratively CLOSE this CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/24/2014. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WAYNE PICKERING,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
vs.
KEN CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.
16
1:14-cv-01833-GSA-PC
ORDER FOR CLERK TO LODGE THE
COMPLAINT IN THIS ACTION AS A
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT IN
CASE 1:11-CV-00937-LJO-DLB-PC
(Doc. 1.)
ORDER FOR CLERK TO
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THIS
CASE
17
18
Wayne Pickering (D-44112) (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted
19
a complaint to the court on November 21, 2014, which was opened by the Clerk as the present
20
case 1:14-cv-01833-GSA-PC. (Doc. 1.) However, the certificate of service attached to the
21
complaint indicates that Plaintiff submitted the complaint as a Third Amended Complaint for
22
case 1:11-cv-00937-LJO-DLB-PC, Pickering v. Ken Clark, et al. (Doc. 1 at 37.)
23
A review of the docket for case 1:11-cv-00937-LJO-DLB-PC shows that Wayne
24
Pickering (D-44112) filed the complaint commencing the case on June 9, 2011. On May 23,
25
2013, the court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, and the
26
case was closed. On June 3, 2013, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. On
27
August 1, 2014, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further
28
proceedings.
1
1
The court has reviewed the complaint for this action and finds that it contains many of
2
the same defendants, allegations, and claims found in the Second Amended Complaint for case
3
1:11-cv-00937-LJO-DLB-PC. Both complaints arose from events at the California Substance
4
Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in
5
2006-2009, concerning Plaintiff‟s allegations of inadequate medical care for his left knee which
6
required surgery. Based on these facts, the court finds that Plaintiff‟s complaint for the present
7
action should be treated as a Third Amended Complaint for case 1:11-cv-00937-LJO-DLB-
8
PC.1
9
10
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to:
1.
11
12
Lodge the complaint for this action as a Third Amended Complaint in case 1:11cv-00937-LJO-DLB-PC; and
2.
Administratively close this case.
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 24, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
“Plaintiffs generally have „no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at
the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.‟” Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services,
487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir.1977) (en banc), cited
with approval in Russ v. Standard Ins. Co., 120 F.3d 988, 990 (9th Cir.1997)); see also Curtis v. Citibank, N.A.,
226 F.3d 133, 138–39 (2d Cir. 2000); Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223–24 (7th Cir.1993)).
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?