United States District Court, E.D. California
TONY R. LEWIS, Plaintiffs,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE AS DUPLICATIVE OF CASE
Lewis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on
August 16, 2017. (ECF No. 1.)
Court finds that this case is duplicative of another pending
case filed by Plaintiff on August 9, 2017, and therefore,
this case must be dismissed.
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)).
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)).
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)).
has two civil rights cases pending before this Court. The
first case was filed on August 9, 2016 as case
1:17-cv-01064-EPG (Lewis v. CDCR, et al.)
(“Case 17-1064”). The second case is the present
case, 1:17-cv-01102-EPG-PC (Lewis v. CDCR, et al., )
(“Case 17-1102”) filed on August 16, 2017. (ECF
No. 1.) On August 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (ECF No.
2.) By Order dated August 17, 2017, this Court granted
Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis.
(ECF No. 4.)
Court has reviewed Plaintiffs 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.
on these facts, the Court finds this case to be duplicative
of Case 17-1064. Therefore, this case must be dismissed.
the Court finds that two documents should be moved from Case
17-1102 for consideration in Case 17-1064: (1) Plaintiffs
application to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on
August 16, 2017 (ECF No. 2) and (2) the Court's August
17, 2017 Order granting Plaintiffs application to proceed
in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4.).
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
based on the foregoing, IT IS ...