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.

George Vasquez v. Duplicative Steven Mayberg

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 13, 2013

GEORGE VASQUEZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DUPLICATIVE STEVEN MAYBERG, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AS (ECF No. 1)

Plaintiff George Vasquez ("Plaintiff") is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff initiated this action on September 21, 2012. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants, administrators at Coalinga State Hospital ("CSH"), will violate his constitutional rights by implementing procedures that will result in the seizure of personal electronic equipment, including his laptop and external memory drives. Plaintiff asks for monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff's Complaint is identical to the complaint he filed in 1:10-cv-1973-BLW, Vasquez v. Mayberg, et al. on November 2, 2010. He simply re-filed that complaint as a new action. After reviewing Plaintiff's complaint in 1:10-cv-1973-BLW, Vasquez v. Mayberg, et al., the Court consolidated that action with civil case 1:06-cv-1801-BLW-LMB, Allen, et al. v. Mayberg, et al.

"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 a verbatim copy of his complaint in 1:10-cv-1973-BLW, Vasquez v. Mayberg, et al. All allegations in the current Complaint are also made in the complaint in 1:10-cv-1973-BLW, Vasquez v. Mayberg, 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 1:10-cv-1973-BLW, Vasquez v. Mayberg, et al. and currently continuing in 1:06-cv-1801-BLW-LMB, Allen, et al. v. Mayberg, 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.

20130213

© 1992-2013 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.