Harris v. High Desert State Prison et al

Filing 25

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/8/2011 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed as duplicative and frivolous. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LEE EDWARD HARRIS, Plaintiff, 11 12 No. CIV S-10-1177 KJM EFB P vs. 13 HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al., 14 Defendants. / 15 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action 17 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff commenced this action on May 13, 2010. Dckt. No. 19 1. On March 21, 2011 the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim after 20 reviewing it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Dckt. No. 19. Plaintiff has since filed a first 21 amended complaint and a second amended complaint, which do not differ in any material 22 respects. Dckt. Nos. 22, 24. 23 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 24 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 26 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 1 1 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 2 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 3 In this action, plaintiff seeks compensation from defendant Sisson for his placement in 4 the Security Housing Unit since September 16, 2008. Dckt. Nos. 22, 24. Having reviewed the 5 first and second amended complaints in this action, the court finds this action should be 6 dismissed as frivolous because it is duplicative of an earlier filed action that plaintiff is now 7 litigating in this court. Dckt. No. 24. See Harris v. High Desert State Prison, No. Civ. S-10- 8 1031 JAM EFB Dckt. Nos. 1 (April 15, 2010 original complaint), 12 (October 20, 2010 amended 9 complaint regarding placement in Security Housing Unit on September 16, 2008), 32 (screening 10 order allowing action to proceed on due process claim against defendant Sisson).1 See 28 U.S.C. 11 § 1915A(b)(1); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (A 12 complaint that “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims” may be dismissed as 13 frivolous under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915). A suit is duplicative if the “claims, parties, 14 and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. 15 Supp.2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Ridge Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. 16 Seagram & Sons, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 1210, 1213 (N.D. Ill. 1983)). “When a complaint involving 17 the same parties and issues has already been filed in another federal district court, the court has 18 discretion to abate or dismiss the second action. Id. at 1144 (citation omitted). “Federal comity 19 and judicial economy give rise to rules which allow a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an 20 action when a similar complaint has already been filed in another federal court.” Id. at 1145 21 (citation omitted). “[I]ncreasing calendar congestion in the federal courts makes it imperative to 22 avoid concurrent litigation in more than one forum whenever consistent with the right of the 23 parties.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979). Due to the duplicative nature of 24 the present action, this action should be dismissed and plaintiff should proceed on the action he 25 1 26 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 2 1 2 3 initially commenced. Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as duplicative and frivolous. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 6 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 8 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 9 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 10 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 Dated: November 8, 2011. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?