Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEATRICE THOMAS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01758-SAB 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. AS DUPLICATIVE AND DENYING PLANTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT 15 Defendant. ORDER DIRECTING OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN 16 DISTRICT JUDGE 17 (ECF Nos. 1, 2) 18 On December 11, 2020, Plaintiff Aleatrice Thomas filed this action appealing the final 19 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Social Security benefits. Along with 20 the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon review of the 21 complaint, the Court finds that it is identical to the complaint filed on December 7, 2020, in 22 Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:20-cv-01723-SAB (E.D. Cal.). 23 The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 24 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Adams v. 25 California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) overruled on other grounds 26 by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008); Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 27 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court has the discretion “to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, 1 to stay that action pending resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from 2 proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. Generally, a 3 plaintiff has “no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the 4 same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (citations 5 omitted). Dismissal of the duplicative action promotes judicial economy and “comprehensive 6 disposition of litigation.” Id. at 692. “It is well established that a district court has broad 7 discretion to control its own docket, and that includes the power to dismiss duplicative claims.” 8 M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist., 681 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir. 2012). 9 In both this action and in Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:20-cv- 10 01723-SAB (E.D. Cal., Plaintiff is seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social 11 Security’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income dated 12 September 20, 2020. Both actions are against the same defendant; the complaints include 13 identical allegations; and are signed on the same date. In each case Plaintiff has sought leave to 14 proceed in forma pauperis. “[L]awsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are 15 subject to dismissal as either frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).” Jones v. Lewis 16 Cty. City of Chehalis, No. C20-5048-RBL-TLF, 2020 WL 3052339, at *1 (W.D. Wash. May 1, 17 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. C20-5048RBL, 2020 WL 3050139 (W.D. 18 Wash. June 8, 2020) (citations omitted). Further, “[r]epetitious litigation of virtually identical 19 causes of action is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) as malicious.” Bailey v. 20 Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). The Court does not abuse its discretion where it 21 dismisses a complaint under § 1915(d) “that merely repeats pending or previously litigated 22 claims. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1995). 23 The Court finds that this action is duplicative of Thomas v. Commissioner of Social 24 Security, No. 1:20-cv-01723-SAB (E.D. Cal.) which is currently pending before the undersigned. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 26 1. This action be DISMISSED as duplicative of Thomas v. Commissioner of Social 27 Security, No. 1:20-cv-01723-SAB (E.D. Cal.); and 1 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a district judge to this action. 2 This findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to this 3 | action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30) 4 | days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to this findings and 5 | recommendations with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 6 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the 7 | magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 8 | Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 9 | waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 10 | Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 11 0 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 13 | Dated: _ December 15, 2020 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28