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)

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