Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ruben Mijel Chavira v. Ruth Coronado

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 23, 2012

RUBEN MIJEL CHAVIRA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
RUTH CORONADO, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE (ECF No. 1) PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

On January 4, 2012, Plaintiff Ruben Mijel Chavira ("Plainitff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action in the Northern District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The case was transferred to the Eastern District on January 12, 2012. (ECF No. 4.)

The substantive issues in Plaintiff's complaint in this action are identical to those raised in a complaint he filed on December 21, 2011, in case 1:12-cv-00055-GSA-PC, Chavira v. Coronado, et al. That action also was initiated in the Northern District and transferred to the Eastern District on January 12, 2012.

"After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions." Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007). "Plaintiffs generally have 'no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.'" Id. (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc)). "[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions ." Id. at 689.

Plaintiff's current complaint is almost a verbatim copy of his complaint in 1:12-cv-00055-GSA-PC, Chavira v. Coronado, et al. The only difference is the addition here of a few exhibits which add nothing of substance. All substantive allegations in the current complaint also are made in the complaint in 1:12-cv-00055-GSA-PC, Chavira v. Coronado, et al. The complaint in the instant action is duplicative and should be dismissed for that reason.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The complaint in this action be dismissed as duplicative of the complaint in case 1:12-cv-000055-GSA-PC, Chavira v. Coronado, et al.; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this action.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's Order. Martinez v. Y1 st, 951 F. 2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120323

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.