Ellis v. Qualls et al

Filing 5

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/4/14 ORDERING that Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE within 30 days why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative of Case No. 2:14-cv-0802 AC; and plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is HELD IN ABEYANCE, pending resolution of this Order To Show Cause.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT ELLIS,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-CV-1875 AC P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

D. QUALLS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This

19

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

20

Because this lawsuit may be subject to summary dismissal, plaintiff will not be assessed the

21

statutory filing fee at this time. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be

22

held in abeyance.

23
24

Duplicative Complaints
The current complaint, filed August 8, 2014, alleges that plaintiff was “written up” on July

25

10, 2013 by defendant Qualls for participating in a “mass hunger strike” that began on July 8,

26

2013. ECF No. 1 at 4. He alleges that he was denied documentation showing that he participated

27

in the hunger strike, that he was denied an “investigative employee” to investigate the matter, and

28

that defendant Harper “already had his mind made up” that plaintiff was guilty. Plaintiff also
1

1

alleges that defendant Qualls falsified the “rule violation report,” and that there were irregularities

2

and Due Process violations in how the violation was treated at each level of appeal. ECF No. 1

3

at 2. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant L. Lopez (the Appeals Coordinator) employed “stall

4

tactics” during the appeal process, in violation of plaintiff’s Due Process rights, that defendant C.

5

Hammonds (the Appeals Examiner) “ignored the facts argued by the petitioner” during the

6

appeals process, and that defendant Zamora (the Chief of Inmate Appeals) “failed to properly

7

investigate” plaintiff’s claims. ECF No. 1 at 2.

8

Previously, on March 31, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint against three of the same

9

defendants sued in the instant case, Qualls, Harper and Lopez. See Ellis v. Faulk, 2:14-cv-0802

10

AC, ECF No. 1 (E.D. Cal. March 31, 2014) (Claire, M.J.). That matter is still pending before the

11

undersigned. The complaint was similarly based upon plaintiff’s having been “written up” on

12

July 10, 2013 by defendant Qualls for participating in a “mass hunger strike” (the date of the

13

hunger strike is not specified in the earlier complaint). The complaint also alleges that plaintiff’s

14

Due Process rights were violated by irregularities in how the violation proceedings were handled.

15

Specifically, plaintiff complains that the report was written up by Qualls even though Qualls did

16

not witness the incident, and that he was found guilty by Harper based upon Qualls’s report. The

17

most recent amendment to this earlier complaint alleges that Qualls submitted a false violation

18

report as a retaliation measure. The amended complaint goes on to complain about irregularities

19

in the appeal process, similar to allegations in the instant complaint. See Ellis v. Faulk, 2:14-

20

cv-0802 AC, ECF No. 11 (E.D. Cal. October 6, 2014).

21

Discussion

22

It facially appears that the current action is duplicative of the first-filed action. However,

23

“[p]laintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject

24

matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” Adams v. California

25

Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert.

26

denied, 552 U.S. 1076 (2007). The determination of whether the actions are duplicative is subject

27

to the test set forth in Adams:

28

To ascertain whether successive causes of action are the same, we
2

1

use the transaction test, developed in the context of claim
preclusion. “Whether two events are part of the same transaction or
series depends on whether they are related to the same set of facts
and whether they could conveniently be tried together.” Western
Sys., Inc. v. Ulloa, 958 F.2d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing
Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24(1) (1982)). In applying
the transaction test, we examine four criteria:

2
3
4
5

(1) whether rights or interests established in the prior
judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of
the second action; (2) whether substantially the same
evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether the two
suits involve infringement of the same right; and (4)
whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional
nucleus of facts. Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681
F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1982). “The last of these
criteria is the most important.” Id. at 1202.

6
7
8
9
10
11

Adams, 487 F.3d at 689-90.
Plaintiff is advised that the Court may dismiss as frivolous a complaint that merely repeats

12

pending or previously litigated claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d

13

1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (“After weighing the equities of the case,

14

the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that

15

action pending resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with

16

it, or to consolidate both actions.”). Plaintiff is further admonished that, if he fails to file a timely

17

response to this Order to Show Cause, such failure may be deemed as consent to the dismissal of

18

the instant action.

19

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1.

21
22

Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE within thirty days why this case should not be

dismissed as duplicative of Case No. 2:14-cv-0802 AC; and
2.

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is HELD IN ABEYANCE,

23

pending resolution of this Order To Show Cause.

24

DATED: December 4, 2014

25
26
27
28
3