United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THIS CASE AS
DUPLICATIVE OF CASE 1:16-CV-00804-DLB-PC OBJECTIONS, IF ANY,
DUE WITHIN 20 DAYS
Jonathan
Elliott Higgins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on
June 13, 2016. (ECF No. 1.)
The
Court finds that this case is duplicative of another pending
case filed by Plaintiff on June 10, 2016, and therefore
recommends that this case be dismissed.
I.
DUPLICATIVE CASES
“District
courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and
‘[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose
sanctions including, where appropriate, default or
dismissal.’” Adams v. California Dept. of
Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los
Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam)). “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, 497 F.3d at 688 (citing
see Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133,
138–39 (2d Cir. 2000); Walton v. Eaton Corp.,
563 F.2d 66, 70–71 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc), cited with
approval in Russ v. Standard Ins. Co., 120 F.3d 988,
990 (9th Cir. 1997)).
“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.’”
Adams, 497 F.3d at 688 (quoting Walton, 563
F.2d at 70; see also Curtis, 226 F.3d at
138–39; Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3
F.3d 221, 223–24 (7th Cir. 1993)).
“To
determine whether a suit is duplicative, we borrow from the
test for claim preclusion.” Adams, 497 F.3d at
688. “[T]he true test of the sufficiency of a plea of
‘other suit pending’ in another forum [i]s the
legal efficacy of the first suit, when finally disposed of,
as ‘the thing adjudged, ’ regarding the matters
at issue in the second suit.” Id. (quoting
The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 124 (1894)).
“Thus, in assessing whether the second action is
duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of
action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies
to the action, are the same.” Adams, 497 F.3d
at 689 (citing see The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. at
124 (“There must be the same parties, or, at least,
such as represent the same interests; there must be the same
rights asserted and the same relief prayed for; the relief
must be founded upon the same facts, and the ... essential
basis, of the relief sought must be the same.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)); Curtis, 226
F.3d at 140 (holding that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing “Curtis II claims arising out
of the same events as those alleged in Curtis I, ”
which claims “would have been heard if plaintiffs had
timely raised them”); Serlin, 3 F.3d at 223
(“[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and
available relief do not significantly differ between the two
actions.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Discussion
Plaintiff
has two civil rights cases pending before this Court. The
first case was filed on June 10, 2016 as case
1:16-cv-0804-DLB-PC (Higgins v. Rodriguez, et al.)
(“16-804”) (Court Record.) The second case is the
present case, 1:16-cv-00819-DAD-EPG-PC (Higgins v.
Rodriguez, et al., ) (“16-819”) filed on
June 13, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed
a “Notice of Two Docket Numbers for One Civil Action,
” informing the Court that his case had been assigned
two different case numbers. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff filed the
same Notice in case 16-804. (Case 16-804, ECF No. 5.)
Plaintiff also noted that case 16-819 contains an application
to proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff on
June 13, 2016.
The
Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s two cases and finds that
both cases are civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, and the parties, allegations, claims, and
requested relief are identical. The original complaints from
both actions appear to be identical copies of each other,
except for variation in the exhibits attached to the
complaints. The Court finds the variation in exhibits
attached to the original complaints to be immaterial, in
light of the fact that Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint in the present case on June 24, 2016, which was
after both of the original complaints were filed on June 10
and June 13, 2016.[1] (ECF No. 7.) Based on these facts, the
Court finds the present case to be duplicative of case
16-804. Because the present case was filed after case 16-804
was filed, the Court shall recommend that the present case be
dismissed.
In
addition, the Court finds that three of Plaintiff’s
documents from the present case should be moved to case
16-804 for consideration in case 16-804: (1)
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis, filed on June 13, 2016 (ECF No. 2); (2)
Plaintiff’s decline to proceed with Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction, filed on June 24, 2016 (ECF No. 5); and (3)
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on June 24,
2016 (ECF No. 7).
III.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The
Court finds that the present case is duplicative of case
1:16-cv-0804-DLB-PC (Higgins v. Rodriguez, et al.)
Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED
that:
1. This case be DISMISSED as duplicative of case
1:16-cv-0804-DLB-PC (Higgins v. Rodriguez, et al.);
2. Three of Plaintiff s documents from the present case be
moved into case 1:16-cv-0804-DLB-PC for consideration in that
case: (1) Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma
pauperis, filed on June 13, 2016 (ECF No. 2); (2)
Plaintiffs decline to proceed with Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction, filed on June 24, 2016 (ECF No. 5); and ...