(PC) Miller v. Najera ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 STEVEN R. MILLER, Case No. 1:20-cv-00234-JDP 10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 11 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF CASE NUMBER 1:19- 12 ALBERT NAJERA, et al., CV-01077-AWI-BAM 13 Defendants. THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 14 15 Plaintiff Steven R. Miller is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 16 rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 17 U.S. 388 (1971). 18 A plaintiff has “no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject 19 matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” Walton v. Eaton 20 Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977). To see whether an action is duplicative, we “examine 21 whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are 22 the same.” Adams v. California Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007). 23 This action appears duplicative of case number 1:19-cv-01077-AWI-BAM—a case with 24 the same subject matter, causes of action, relief, and parties. We therefore give plaintiff thirty 25 days to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as duplicative. If plaintiff filed 26 this new complaint in error, he should voluntarily dismiss this separate action. If plaintiff does 27 not file a response, we will recommend that this action be dismissed. 1 5 {TIS SO ORDERED. ° p : CN prssenn —_ ated: __ April 13, 2020 4 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 | No. 205. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28