McCoy v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 6

ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign District Judge -CASE ASSIGNED to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. New Case No. 1:16-cv-01783 DAD BAM (PC); FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action as Duplicative 1 , 5 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/28/17: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAKEITH LEROY MCCOY,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01783-BAM (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION AS
DUPLICATIVE
(ECF Nos. 1, 5)

Defendants.
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

18
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
19

Plaintiff LaKeith LeRoy McCoy (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

20
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was removed to this Court on November 23, 2016
21
from the Kern County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.)
22
23

On June 13, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found it duplicative of
Plaintiff’s prior pending case, McCoy v. M. Garkaparthi, et al., No. 1:13-cv-01495-DAD-BAM.

24
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court therefore issued an order for
25
Plaintiff to show cause, within twenty-one days after service, why this action should not be
26
dismissed as duplicative. (ECF No. 5.) More than twenty-one days have passed and Plaintiff has
27
failed to respond to the show cause order. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that this
28
1

1

action be dismissed as duplicative.

2

I.

3

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

4

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

5

§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous

6

or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary

7

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff’s Allegations

8

II.

9

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in

10

Tehachapi, California. The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff

11

was incarcerated at CCI. Plaintiff names the CDCR, Tony Chavez, Kim Holland, Anthony

12

Steiber, M. Garikaparthi, and John Keeler. Plaintiff alleges that in March 2012 he was diagnosed

13

as being allergic to eggs. In summary, Plaintiff alleges that in and throughout 2013, Plaintiff was

14

not given food to accommodate his food allergy and as a result he lost weight and suffered other

15

harms as a result of food deprivation.

16

III.

17

On September 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed McCoy v. M. Garkaparthi, et al., No. 1:13-cv-

Another Pending Action

18

01495-DAD-BAM (“McCoy I”).1 The complaint filed in McCoy I also complains of food

19

deprivation in and throughout 2013 at CCI. That claim is now pending following an appeal

20

before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Doc.

21

19, 48, 49.

22

IV.

23

Duplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to

Discussion

24

dismissal as either frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See, e.g., Cato v. United

25

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 574

26

(10th Cir. 1997); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994–95 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846

27

F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). A complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated

28

1

The Court takes judicial notice of the files in that case. Fed. R. Evid. 201.

2

1

claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under § 1915. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2;

2

Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a

3

stay or the enjoinment of proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the comprehensive

4

disposition of litigation.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 692–93 (9th Cir.

5

2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).

6

To assess whether a claim is duplicative, courts use the test for claim preclusion. “Thus,

7

in assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes

8

of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” Adams,

9

487 F.3d at 689 (citations omitted). “Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate

10

actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same

11

defendant.” Id. at 688 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

12

As discussed above, the complaint in McCoy I is nearly identical to the complaint filed in

13

the instant case. In both cases, Plaintiff raises nearly the same claims, apparently arising out of

14

the same events, involving the same parties, and infringing upon the same rights. Although

15

Plaintiff was granted an opportunity to demonstrate why this action is not duplicative of McCoy I,

16

he did not respond. Therefore, the Court finds that this case should be dismissed because it is

17

duplicative of Plaintiff’s prior current pending case.

18

V.

19

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to

20
21
22
23

Conclusion and Recommendation

randomly assign a district judge to this action.
Further, for the reasons stated, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be
dismissed as duplicative.
These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

24

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

25

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file

26

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

27

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections

28

within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s
3

1

factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing

2

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 28, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

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
4