Jonathan Elliott Higgins v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 9

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss This Case as Duplicative of Case 1:16-cv-00804-DLB-PC, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/22/2016. Objections to F&R Due Within Twenty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JONATHAN ELLIOTT HIGGINS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:16-cv-00819-DAD-EPG-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS THIS CASE AS
DUPLICATIVE OF CASE 1:16-CV-00804DLB-PC

LOUIS RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 20
DAYS

16
17
18
19
20

Jonathan Elliott Higgins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

21
22

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

23

Complaint commencing this action on June 13, 2016. (ECF No. 1.)

24

Plaintiff filed the

The Court finds that this case is duplicative of another pending case filed by Plaintiff on

25

June 10, 2016, and therefore recommends that this case be dismissed.

26

I.

DUPLICATIVE CASES

27

“District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and ‘[i]n the exercise of

28

that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.’”
1

1

Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting

2

Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per

3

curiam)). “After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion

4

to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the

5

previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both

6

actions.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 688 (citing see Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138–39

7

(2d Cir. 2000); Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70–71 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc), cited with

8

approval in Russ v. Standard Ins. Co., 120 F.3d 988, 990 (9th Cir. 1997)).

9

“Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same

10

subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams,

11

497 F.3d at 688 (quoting Walton, 563 F.2d at 70; see also Curtis, 226 F.3d at 138–39; Serlin v.

12

Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223–24 (7th Cir. 1993)).

13

“To determine whether a suit is duplicative, we borrow from the test for claim

14

preclusion.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 688. “[T]he true test of the sufficiency of a plea of ‘other suit

15

pending’ in another forum [i]s the legal efficacy of the first suit, when finally disposed of, as

16

‘the thing adjudged,’ regarding the matters at issue in the second suit.” Id. (quoting The

17

Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 124 (1894)). “Thus, in assessing whether the second action is

18

duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as

19

the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 689 (citing see The

20

Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. at 124 (“There must be the same parties, or, at least, such as

21

represent the same interests; there must be the same rights asserted and the same relief prayed

22

for; the relief must be founded upon the same facts, and the ... essential basis, of the relief

23

sought must be the same.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Curtis, 226 F.3d at 140 (holding

24

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing “Curtis II claims arising out of the

25

same events as those alleged in Curtis I,” which claims “would have been heard if plaintiffs had

26

timely raised them”); Serlin, 3 F.3d at 223 (“[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and

27

available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” (internal quotation marks

28

omitted)).
2

1

Discussion

2

Plaintiff has two civil rights cases pending before this Court. The first case was filed on

3

June 10, 2016 as case 1:16-cv-0804-DLB-PC (Higgins v. Rodriguez, et al.) (“16-804”) (Court

4

Record.)

5

Rodriguez, et al.,) (“16-819”) filed on June 13, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff

6

filed a “Notice of Two Docket Numbers for One Civil Action,” informing the Court that his

7

case had been assigned two different case numbers. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff filed the same

8

Notice in case 16-804. (Case 16-804, ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff also noted that case 16-819

9

contains an application to proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff on June 13, 2016.

The second case is the present case, 1:16-cv-00819-DAD-EPG-PC (Higgins v.

10

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s two cases and finds that both cases are civil rights

11

actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the parties, allegations, claims, and requested relief

12

are identical. The original complaints from both actions appear to be identical copies of each

13

other, except for variation in the exhibits attached to the complaints. The Court finds the

14

variation in exhibits attached to the original complaints to be immaterial, in light of the fact that

15

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in the present case on June 24, 2016, which was after

16

both of the original complaints were filed on June 10 and June 13, 2016.1 (ECF No. 7.) Based

17

on these facts, the Court finds the present case to be duplicative of case 16-804. Because the

18

present case was filed after case 16-804 was filed, the Court shall recommend that the present

19

case be dismissed.

20

In addition, the Court finds that three of Plaintiff’s documents from the present case

21

should be moved to case 16-804 for consideration in case 16-804: (1) Plaintiff’s application to

22

proceed in forma pauperis, filed on June 13, 2016 (ECF No. 2); (2) Plaintiff’s decline to

23

proceed with Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, filed on June 24, 2016 (ECF No. 5); and (3)

24

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on June 24, 2016 (ECF No. 7).

25

///

26
27
28

1

An amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.
3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete in itself without reference to the prior or
superceded pleading. Local Rule 220.
3

1
2

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court finds that the present case is duplicative of case 1:16-cv-0804-DLB-PC

3

(Higgins v. Rodriguez, et al.)

4

RECOMMENDED that:

5

1.

6
7

Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY

This case be DISMISSED as duplicative of case 1:16-cv-0804-DLB-PC
(Higgins v. Rodriguez, et al.);

2.

Three of Plaintiff’s documents from the present case be moved into case 1:16-

8

cv-0804-DLB-PC for consideration in that case: (1) Plaintiff’s application to

9

proceed in forma pauperis, filed on June 13, 2016 (ECF No. 2); (2) Plaintiff’s

10

decline to proceed with Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, filed on June 24, 2016

11

(ECF No. 5); and (3) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on June 24,

12

2016 (ECF No. 7); and

13

3.

14

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

15

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within

16

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may

17

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to

18

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

19

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.

20

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

21

(9th Cir. 1991)).

The Clerk be directed to administratively CLOSE this case.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 22, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
4