Yglesias v. Patel, et al.

Filing 7

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this Case be Dismissed, with Prejudice, as Duplicative of Case 1:17-cv-1282-GSA(PC); Objections, if any, Due within Fourteen (14) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/27/2017. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 12/14/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAY YGLESIAS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. ISMAEL PATEL, M.D., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 1:17-cv-01294-AWI-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, AS DUPLICATIVE OF CASE 1:17-CV-01282GSA-PC OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 17 18 19 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Ray Yglesias (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 22 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 23 commencing this action on September 28, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) The court finds that this case is 24 duplicative of another pending case filed by Plaintiff on September 27, 2017, and therefore 25 recommends that this case be dismissed. 26 II. DUPLICATIVE CASES 27 As a general matter, duplicative litigation of virtually identical causes of action is 28 subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C § 1915 as malicious. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1 1 1103, 1105 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming that duplicative litigation is “an independent ground 2 for dismissal”); see also Adams v. California, 487 F.3d 684, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal 3 of a duplicative lawsuit “promotes judicial economy and the comprehensive disposition of 4 litigation,” finding that a plaintiff is required to bring all claims that relate to the same 5 transaction or event at one time), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 6 880 (2008). Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 & n. 1. 7 “There is no abuse of discretion where a district court dismisses under § 1915(d) a 8 complaint ‘that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.’” Cato v. U.S., 70 F.3d 9 1103, 1105 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 10 1988)); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 30, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992) 11 (recognizing Congress’s concern that “a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed 12 by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing 13 frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits”) (quotation omitted). 14 “[I]n assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine 15 whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are 16 the same.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 689 (citing see The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. at 124 (“There 17 must be the same parties, or, at least, such as represent the same interests; there must be the 18 same rights asserted and the same relief prayed for; the relief must be founded upon the same 19 facts, and the . . . essential basis, of the relief sought must be the same.” (internal quotation 20 marks omitted)); Curtis v. Citibank, 226 F.3d 133, 140 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that the trial 21 court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing “Curtis II claims arising out of the same events 22 as those alleged in Curtis I,” which claims “would have been heard if plaintiffs had timely 23 raised them”); Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[A] suit is 24 duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two 25 actions.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff has two civil rights cases pending before this court. The first case was filed on 3 September 27, 2017, as case 1:17-cv-01282-GSA-PC (Yglesias v. Patel, et al.) (“17-1282”) 4 (Court Record.) The second case is the present case, 1:17-cv-01294-AWI-GSA-PC (Yglesias 5 v. Patel, et al.) (“17-1294”), filed on September 28, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) 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. The original complaints from both actions appear to be identical copies of each 9 other, except for variation in the exhibits attached to the complaints. Based on these facts, the 10 court finds the present case to be duplicative of case 17-1282. The court finds the variation in 11 exhibits attached to the original complaints to be immaterial, given that Plaintiff may file an 12 amended complaint as a matter of course in case 17-1282 if he so wishes.1 Because the present 13 case was filed after case 17-1282 was filed, the court shall recommend that the present case be 14 dismissed with prejudice. 15 IV. 16 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The court finds that the present case is duplicative of case 1:17-cv-01282-GSA-PC 17 (Yglesias v. Patel, et al.). 18 RECOMMENDED that: 19 1. 20 Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY This case be DISMISSED, with prejudice, as duplicative of case 1:17-cv-01282GSA-PC (Yglesias v. Patel, et al.); and 21 2. 22 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 23 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 24 fourteen (14) days from the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff The Clerk be directed to CLOSE this case. 25 26 27 28 1 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because Plaintiff has not previously amended the Complaint in case 171282, and no responsive pleading has been served in this action, Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint as a matter of course in case 17-1282. 3 1 may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 2 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 3 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 4 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 5 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 27, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?