Plaintiff Robert E. Dearmon filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. See E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff's application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, his request is granted.
Plaintiff has filed duplicative lawsuits, and this action must therefore be dismissed. A suit is duplicative if the "claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions." Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp.2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Ridge Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 1210, 1213 (N.D. Ill. 1983)). "When a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another federal district court, the court has discretion to abate or dismiss the second action." Id. at 1144 (citation omitted). "Federal comity and judicial economy give rise to rules which allow a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a similar complaint has already been filed in another federal court." Id. at 1145 (citation omitted). "[I]ncreasing calendar congestion in the federal courts makes it imperative to avoid concurrent litigation in more than one forum whenever consistent with the right of the parties." Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979).
On November 24, 2008, plaintiff filed a civil rights lawsuit against S. Iwanick, Author Pagsolingan, and Aries Pagsolingan. Dearmon v. S. Iwanick, No. Civ. S-08-2834 MCE KJM, Docket No. 1.*fn1 In that lawsuit, plaintiff alleges that two police officers from the Albany Police Department and one officer from the Fairfield Police Department used excessive force on him on October 16, 2008. Id. at 2-4. On September 14, 2009, plaintiff filed the instant complaint against the Fairfield Police Department concerning the same incident on October 16, 2008. Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, this action must be dismissed and plaintiff should proceed on the action he initially commenced.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and
2. This action be dismissed without ...