(PC) Venson v. Knight ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIFFORD A. VENSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01400-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE 13 v. 14-DAY DEADLINE 14 J. KNIGHT, Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Clifford A. Venson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this action. On April 21, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should 19 not be dismissed as duplicative of a case in the Southern District of California. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff 20 filed a response on May 5, 2020. (Doc. 12.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court 21 recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 22 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 23 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 24 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 25 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a prisoner or plaintiff proceeding in 26 forma pauperis has raised claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which 27 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 1 II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS IN PRESENT ACTION 2 In the present case, Plaintiff alleges that prison staff at Richard J. Donavan Correctional 3 Facility issued him a rules violation report (RVR) for alleged battery on a peace officer. (See Doc. 4 1 at 3, 6.) The matter proceeded to an administrative hearing on May 29, 2018. (See Doc. 10 at 4.) 5 On August 24, 2018, prison officials reissued the RVR, and it proceeded to a second hearing on 6 October 3, 2018. (Id.) On January 16, 2019, officials against reissued the RVR, and it proceeded 7 to a third hearing on February 27, 2019. (Id. at 4-5.) On September 20, 2019, Appeals Examiner 8 J. Knight ordered the RVR to again be reissued and reheard a fourth time. (Id. at 5; see also Doc. 9 1 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant [Knight] prevented [him] from engaging in protected 10 conduct by waiting eight months to issue a third level appeal decision to have [RVR] … reissued 11 and reheard” the fourth time. (Doc. 10 at 4.) 12 III. PLAINTIFF’S OPERATIVE COMPLAINT IN SEPARATE PROCEEDING1 13 In his operative complaint in Venson v. Jackson, et al., Plaintiff alleges that, on May 7, 14 2018, prison staff “charged [him] with battery on a peace officer.” Case No. 3:18-cv-2278-BAS- 15 BLM (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2019) (Doc. 60 at 4). On August 24, 2018, the chief disciplinary officer 16 ordered the resulting RVR to be reissued and reheard on October 3, 2018. Id. The “reporting 17 employee” was not available on that date, so officials ordered a third hearing to be held on 18 February 27, 2019. (Id.) On September 20, 2019, Appeals Examiner J. Knight ordered a 19 correctional captain to reissue and rehear the RVR for a fourth time. Id. Plaintiff alleges that 20 Knight retaliated against him by ordering the fourth hearing. See id. 21 Defendant Knight filed an answer to Plaintiff’s operative complaint on January 13, 2020. 22 Venson v. Jackson, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-2278-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal.) (Doc. 69). The case is 23 currently pending in the Southern District of California. See id. (Doc. 96). 24 IV. DISCUSSION 25 “A complaint ‘that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims’” is subject to 26 dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1995) 27 (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)). “[A] duplicative action arising 1 from the same series of events and alleging many of the same facts as an earlier suit” may be 2 dismissed as frivolous or malicious under section 1915(e). See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. 3 “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of 4 proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the ‘comprehensive disposition of litigation.’” 5 Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 692 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), 6 overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). 7 To determine whether a claim is duplicative, courts use the test for claim preclusion. 8 Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. “Thus, in assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, 9 [courts] examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to 10 the action, are the same.” Id. at 689 (citations omitted). 11 In the present action and Venson v. Jackson, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-2278-BAS-BLM 12 (S.D. Cal.) (“Venson I”), Plaintiff raises the same claims, against the same defendant, arising out 13 of the same events, and infringing upon the same right. Therefore, the Court finds that this action 14 is duplicative of Venson I. 15 In his response to the Court’s order to show cause, Plaintiff states that he “filed 16 duplicative claims in two different jurisdictions to preserve the constitutional violation committed 17 by J. Knight.” (Doc. 12 at 4.) However, “[p]laintiffs generally have no right to maintain two 18 separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against 19 the same defendant.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 20 Since Plaintiff is pursuing a separate case against Defendant for the same constitutional violations 21 alleged in this action, this action should be dismissed as duplicative. 22 V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 23 For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be 24 DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a District 25 Judge to this action. 26 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 27 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 1 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 2 Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 3 waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 4 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Sheila K. Oberto 7 Dated: May 6, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27