(PC) Venson v. Knight ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIFFORD A. VENSON, No. 1:19-cv-01400-DAD-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. KNIGHT, (Doc. No. 14) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Clifford A. Venson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 21, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to show cause why this 21 action should not be dismissed as duplicative of claims in Venson v. Jackson, et al., No. 3:18-cv- 22 2278-BAS-BLM, a case plaintiff is litigating in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District 23 of California. (Doc. No. 11.) On May 5, 2020, plaintiff filed a response to the order to show 24 cause, in which he did not deny that this case is duplicative but rather stated that he “filed 25 duplicate claims in two different jurisdictions to preserve the constitutional violation committed 26 by J. Knight.” (Doc. No. 12 at 4.) 27 Accordingly, on May 7, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 28 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative. (Doc. No. 14.) The MADE VEIT PANE SINS OPI VO te Yee ve 1 | findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections 2 | thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date. (Ud. at 3-4.) Plaintiff filed 3 | timely objections on May 20, 2020. (Doc. No. 15.) 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 5 | court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 6 | including plaintiff's objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 7 | by the record and proper analysis. 8 In his objections, plaintiff repeats his claims against defendant Knight. (Doc. No. 15 at 2, 9 | 3,5-6.) Plaintiff does not deny that his claims are duplicative of those presented in the action he 10 | has filed in the Southern District of California, but requests that the court exercise its discretion to 11 | not dismiss this action. (See id. at 4.) The magistrate judge correctly noted in the pending 12 | findings and recommendations that “[d]ismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the 13 | issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the 14 | ‘comprehensive disposition of litigation.” (Doc. No. 11 at 3) (citing Adams v. California Dep’t 15 | of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 692 (9th Cir. 2007) overruled on other grounds by Taylor vy. 16 | Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008)). The Eastern District of California has one of the heaviest 17 || caseloads in the nation, (see Doc. No. 13), and thus the undersigned has no hesitance agreeing 18 || with the magistrate judge’s recommendation that plaintiff's duplicative action filed in this court 19 || be dismissed. 20 Accordingly, 21 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 7, 2020 (Doc. No. 14) are 22 adopted in full; 23 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice as duplicative; and 24 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ 26 Li fa £5 Dated: _ August 10, 2020 eee Te yy 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28