(PC) Everett v. C.D.C.R.
Filing
23
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/25/2019 ORDERING Clerk of Court to randomly assign a district judge and RECOMMENDING 21 First Amended Complaint be dismissed as duplicative and the Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. Assigned and referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RICHARD C. EVERETT,
12
No. 2:18-cv-01894 CKD P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
C.D.C.R.,
15
ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
18
rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is plaintiff’s first
19
amended complaint. ECF No. 23.
20
I.
Screening Standard
21
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
22
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
23
court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are
24
“frivolous, malicious, or fail[ ] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[ ]
25
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
26
II.
27
In the amended complaint, plaintiff names Dr. Patterson, a psychologist at New Folsom
28
First Amended Complaint
State Prison, as the sole defendant. ECF No. 21 at 2. He alleges that on “4/3/2018 at 10:45 a.m.”
1
1
and “4/10/2018 at 11:00 a.m.” defendant Dr. Patterson verbally abused plaintiff by trying to
2
convince him that “it is o.k. to be with a homosexual.” ECF No. 21 at 3. Plaintiff further alleges
3
that defendant Dr. Patterson was trying to hook him up with a Psychiatric Technician at the prison
4
by the name of Bonnie who is a transgender man. Id. at 5. According to the allegations in the
5
amended complaint, defendant Dr. Patterson had “Mr. Bonnie” talk to plaintiff “in a very sexy
6
way….” Id. This made plaintiff feel depressed and suicidal and on May 1, 2018 plaintiff put his
7
own human waste all over his face. Id. at 5-6. As a remedy, plaintiff “would like Dr. Patterson to
8
be removed from his position and from the mental health program” at CSP-Sacramento. Id. at 4.
9
10
III.
Analysis
The allegations in the first amended complaint are against the exact same defendant and
11
allege the exact same conduct as plaintiff’s complaint in Everett v. Patterson, 2:18-cv-01082
12
CKD P (E.D. Cal. 2018), which was filed before the present civil rights action. However,
13
plaintiff does not have the right to file two separate actions “involving the same subject matter at
14
the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health
15
Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by
16
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). In order to determine whether a second action is
17
duplicative of an earlier-filed action, the court must “examine whether the causes of action and
18
relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” Id. at 688-89 (citations
19
omitted). In this case, the causes of action and relief sought are nearly verbatim to those in
20
plaintiff’s earlier-filed civil rights lawsuit. In both cases, the only named defendant is Dr.
21
Patterson. For all these reasons, the undersigned concludes that this case is duplicative of the
22
earlier-filed civil rights action and should be dismissed.
23
IV.
Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Litigant
24
Since plaintiff is acting as his own attorney in this case, the court wants to make sure that
25
this order is understood. The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English
26
and is not intended as legal advice.
27
28
The court has read the allegations in your first amended complaint and is recommending
that it be dismissed because your allegations are the same as another pending civil rights case that
2
1
you filed. If this recommendation is accepted by the district court judge assigned to your case,
2
this case will not proceed any further and this civil action will be closed.
3
4
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court
randomly assign this matter to a district court judge.
5
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that:
6
1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 21) be dismissed as duplicative; and,
7
2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
8
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
9
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
10
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
11
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
12
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
13
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
14
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
15
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
16
Dated: March 25, 2019
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
12/ever1894.screening.docx
25
26
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?