(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-NONE-JDP 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN INDEFINITE EXTENSION 11 v. ECF No. 12 12 ALBERT NAJERA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 Defendants. THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED AS 14 DUPLICATIVE OF CASE NUMBER 1:19- CV-01077-AWI-BAM 15 OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 16 17 18 Plaintiff Steven R. Miller is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 19 rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 20 U.S. 388 (1971). On April 13, 2020, the court ordered that plaintiff show cause why this case 21 should not be dismissed as duplicative of case number 1:19-CV-01077-AWI-BAM. ECF 22 No. 7. On May 18, 2020, plaintiff asked for an indefinite extension of time to respond, citing 23 lockdowns resulting from COVID-19. ECF No. 8. The court granted plaintiff an additional 60 24 days. ECF No. 11. On July 17, 2020, plaintiff again moved for an indefinite extension of 25 time, citing ongoing COVID-19 lockdowns that hinder legal research. ECF No. 12. 26 While the court is sympathetic to the difficulties imposed by ongoing lockdowns, these 27 circumstances do not warrant additional time. Plaintiff’s complaint in this case appears nearly 1 identical to his first amended complaint in case number 1:19-CV-01077-AWI-BAM. Compare 2 ECF No. 4 in Case No. 1:19-CV-01077-AWI-BAM with ECF No. 1 in Case No. 1:20-cv- 3 00234-NONE-JDP. If plaintiff has an explanation for why he is pursuing the same complaint 4 in two separate cases, he should be able to offer that explanation without extensive legal 5 research. Moreover, plaintiff will still have another chance to offer such an explanation in his 6 objections to this order. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension, ECF No. 12, therefore lacks good 7 cause and is denied. 8 The court also recommends that this case be dismissed as duplicative. As mentioned in 9 the court’s order to show cause, ECF No. 7, a plaintiff has “no right to maintain two separate 10 actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the 11 same defendant.” Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977). To see whether an 12 action is duplicative, we “examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the 13 parties or privies to the action, are the same.” Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 14 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007). As noted above, this action appears nearly identical to that in 15 case number 1:19-cv-01077-AWI-BAM—a case with the same subject matter, causes of 16 action, relief, and parties. 17 We submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge presiding over this 18 case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United 19 States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 30 days of the date of service of 20 the findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and 21 serve a copy on all parties. That document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 22 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings and 23 recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 24 25 26 27 WAS 4.6 UVM EUSTON INE VR VUITTON Ve te AYO VM VIS 1 > IS SO ORDERED. ° Vy 23, —N prssann □□□ —_ ated: _ July 23, 2020 4 UNI STATE AGISTRATE 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