Brennan v. Mitchell et al

Filing 8

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to Show Cause. Plaintiff is directed to show cause by May 25, 2018, why the Court should not terminate and close this case on the grounds it is duplicative of the complaint he earlier filed in 17-CV-1928-JCC-JPD. Signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via first class)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

RONALD JOHN BRENNAN, JR.,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.
CHARLES MITCHELL, et al.,

CASE NO. 2:18-cv-00624-RAJ-BAT
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE IS NOT DUPLICATIVE
OF C17-1928 JCC

Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff is directed to show cause by May 25, 2018, why the Court should not terminate
and close this case on the grounds it is duplicative of the complaint he earlier filed in 17-CV1928-JCC-JPD. The Court’s order is prompted by the exhibits plaintiff filed on May 10, 2018,
which state “All Exhibits are also answered by the defendants to another civil rights action filed
in this Court. 17-CV-1928-JCC-JPD file December 27, 2017.” Dkt. 7.
The exhibit indicate the two complaints overlap. Indeed, the complaint filed in this case,
18-624 RAJ, names Charles Mitchell, Alexis Wafstet, Fletcher, Ryakhovskiy, Hoover and
Kimberly Parker, as defendants, just as the amended complaint filed in 17-1928 JCC does.
Additionally, the complaint filed under 17-1928 JCC alleges similar claims: staff retaliation,
assault, sleep deprivation, max status conditions and consequence, grievance issues, health
hazards and deliberate indifference to medical needs, PREA issues, and denial of participation in
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THIS CASE IS NOT DUPLICATIVE - 1

1

religious observances. Dkts. 27-33. It makes no sense to have two complaints that cover the same

2

ground go forward simultaneously. Plaintiff must thus explain why this complaint, 18-624 RAJ

3

should not be terminated as duplicative, and why his claims cannot proceed under 17-1928. If

4

plaintiff fails to respond by May 25, 2018, or if his response fails to explain why this matter

5

should go forward, the Court will recommend it be terminated and closed.

6

DATED this 11th day of May, 2018.

7

A

8

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

OF C17-1928 JCC - 2