Lewis v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, et al.

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE as duplicative of case 1:17-cv-01064-EPG signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/5/2017. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 1:17-cv-01102-EPG-PC TONY R. LEWIS, 12 Plaintiff(s), 13 v. 14 15 16 ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE AS DUPLICATIVE OF CASE 1:17-cv01064-EPG CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION et al., 17 Defendant(s). 18 Tony R. Lewis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 20 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 commencing this action on August 16, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) The Court finds that this case is duplicative of another pending case filed by Plaintiff on 22 23 24 Plaintiff filed the Complaint August 9, 2017, and therefore, this case must be dismissed. I. DUPLICATIVE CASES 25 “District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and ‘[i]n the exercise of 26 that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.’” 27 Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 28 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.1986) (per 1 1 curiam)). “After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion 2 to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the 3 previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both 4 actions.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 688 (citing see Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138–39 5 (2d Cir. 2000); Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70–71 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc), cited with 6 approval in Russ v. Standard Ins. Co., 120 F.3d 988, 990 (9th Cir. 1997)). 7 “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same 8 subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams, 9 497 F.3d at 688 (quoting Walton, 563 F.2d at 70; see also Curtis, 226 F.3d at 138–39; Serlin v. 10 Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223–24 (7th Cir. 1993)). 11 “To determine whether a suit is duplicative, we borrow from the test for claim 12 preclusion.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 688. “[T]he true test of the sufficiency of a plea of ‘other suit 13 pending’ in another forum [i]s the legal efficacy of the first suit, when finally disposed of, as 14 ‘the thing adjudged,’ regarding the matters at issue in the second suit.” Id. (quoting The 15 Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 124 (1894)). “Thus, in assessing whether the second action is 16 duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as 17 the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 689 (citing see The 18 Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. at 124 (“There must be the same parties, or, at least, such as 19 represent the same interests; there must be the same rights asserted and the same relief prayed 20 for; the relief must be founded upon the same facts, and the ... essential basis, of the relief 21 sought must be the same.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Curtis, 226 F.3d at 140 (holding 22 that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing “Curtis II claims arising out of the 23 same events as those alleged in Curtis I,” which claims “would have been heard if plaintiffs had 24 timely raised them”); Serlin, 3 F.3d at 223 (“[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and 25 available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” (internal quotation marks 26 omitted)). 27 II. 28 DISCUSSION Plaintiff has two civil rights cases pending before this Court. The first case was filed on 2 1 August 9, 2016 as case 1:17-cv-01064-EPG (Lewis v. CDCR, et al.) (“Case 17-1064”). The 2 second case is the present case, 1:17-cv-01102-EPG-PC (Lewis v.CDCR, et al.,) (“Case 17- 3 1102”) filed on August 16, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On August 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to 4 proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (ECF No. 2.) By Order dated August 17, 2017, this 5 Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 4.) 6 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s two cases and finds that both cases are civil rights 7 actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the parties, allegations, claims, and requested relief 8 are identical. 9 10 Based on these facts, the Court finds this case to be duplicative of Case 17-1064. Therefore, this case must be dismissed. 11 However, the Court finds that two documents should be moved from Case 17-1102 for 12 consideration in Case 17-1064: (1) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, filed 13 on August 16, 2017 (ECF No. 2) and (2) the Court’s August 17, 2017 Order granting Plaintiff’s 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4.). 15 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 16 Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. This case is DISMISSED as duplicative of case 1:17-cv-01064-EPG (Lewis v. 18 CDCR, et al.); 19 2. The Clerk is directed to move two documents from the present case to case 1:17- 20 cv-01064-EPG: (1) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on 21 August 16, 2017 (ECF No. 2) and (2) the Court’s August 17, 2017 Order granting 22 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4.); and 23 3. The Clerk is directed to administratively CLOSE this case. 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 5, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?