(PC) Lewis v. Ugwueze ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARONTA T. LEWIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00575-NONE-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. TO DISMISS ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE 14 G. UGWUEZE, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 On August 10, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not 18 be dismissed for his failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) or pay the 19 filing fee. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff responded to the order to show cause on August 24 and 31, 2020. 20 (Docs. 17-19.) In his responses, Plaintiff states that the Court already granted him IFP status in 21 case no. 1:20-cv-00596, and he attaches copies of the corresponding orders in that case. (Id.) 22 Accordingly, the Court reviewed the records in case no. 1:20-cv-00596. The Court takes judicial 23 notice of the complaint in that case1 and finds that it is duplicative of the complaint in the present 24 action. Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed as 25 duplicative. 26 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 27 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 1 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 2 The Court must dismiss a complaint or a portion thereof if a prisoner has raised claims that are 3 frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 4 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 5 1915(e)(2)(B). 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 “A complaint ‘that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims’” is subject to 8 dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1995) 9 (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)). “[A] duplicative action arising 10 from the same series of events and alleging many of the same facts as an earlier suit” may be 11 dismissed as frivolous or malicious under section 1915(e). See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. 12 “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of 13 proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the ‘comprehensive disposition of litigation.’” 14 Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 692 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), 15 overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). 16 To determine whether a claim is duplicative, courts use the test for claim preclusion. 17 Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. “Thus, in assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, 18 [courts] examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to 19 the action, are the same.” Id. at 689 (citations omitted). 20 In Lewis v. Ugwueze et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00596-AWI-SAB (“Lewis I”), Plaintiff 21 raises the same claims against the same defendants and requests the same relief as he does in the 22 present case (“Lewis II”). (Compare Lewis I, Doc. 1 at 2, 3-7, 8, 13, 21, 30-35 with Lewis II, Doc. 23 1 at 3, 4-8, 9, 32, 61, 96-101.) The complaints in the two cases are virtually identical, save for 24 extra exhibits provided in the present case. (Compare Lewis I, Doc. 1 at 2-12, 13-20, 21-25, 27-36 25 with Lewis II, Doc. 1 at 3-13, 32-39, 61-65, 93-102.) It appears that Plaintiff submitted the same 26 complaint to the Court twice, adding attachments the second time, and the Clerk’s Office 27 therefore opened two separate actions. Based on his responses to the Court’s order to show 1 event, it is clear that the complaint in the present case is duplicative of the complaint in Lewis I. 2 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 3 For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be 4 DISMISSED without prejudice. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the 5 United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 6 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, 7 Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, 8 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 9 within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 10 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Sheila K. Oberto 13 Dated: September 8, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27