(PC) Flores v. CCWF ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ENID MARIE FLORES, Case No. 1:19-cv-01681-AWI-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF CASE 1:19-cv-01509-NONE-JLT 14 CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL WOMEN’S FACILITY, et al., THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Enid Marie Flores is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action. 18 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on November 12, 2019. ECF No. 1. As it 19 appears that plaintiff filed a complaint against the same defendants based on the same allegations 20 in Flores v. Cal. Corr. Women’s Facility, No. 1:19-cv-01509 at ECF No. 1, the court will order 21 plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative. 22 Duplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to 23 dismissal as either frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See, e.g., Cato v. United 24 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 574 25 (10th Cir. 1997); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994–95 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 26 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate 27 actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same 28 1 defendant.’” Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) 2 (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977)), overruled on other grounds by 3 Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). 4 “To determine whether a suit is duplicative, we borrow from the test for claim 5 preclusion.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 688. “‘[T]he true test of the sufficiency of a plea of ‘other suit 6 pending’ in another forum [i]s the legal efficacy of the first suit, when finally disposed of, as ‘the 7 thing adjudged,’ regarding the matters at issue in the second suit.’” Id. (quoting The Haytian 8 Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 124 (1894)). “Thus, in assessing whether the second action is duplicative 9 of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties . . . 10 to the action, are the same.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 689. See also Serlin v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 11 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (“[A] suit is 12 duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two 13 actions.”). 14 On October 23, 2019, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California and 15 that is proceeding in Flores v. Cal. Corr. Women’s Facility, No. 1:19-cv-01509. Three weeks 16 later, plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action. Several pages of the complaints in 17 both cases are identical. The allegations are identical. The defendants are identical. The only 18 difference in the complaints is that plaintiff includes more exhibits attached to her complaint in 19 Flores, No. 1:19-cv-01509, at ECF No. 1. 20 Thus, it appears that this case is duplicative of Flores v. Cal. Corr. Women’s Facility, No. 21 1:19-cv-01509. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that within thirty days from the date of service 22 of this order, plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative. If 23 plaintiff does not wish to pursue this case, she may file a notice of dismissal. If plaintiff fails to 24 file a response, we will recommend that this case be dismissed. 25 26 27 28 1 5 | □□ ISSO ORDERED. ° p : —N prssann — Dated: __ April 6, 2020 4 UNIT2D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 | No. 204. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28