(PC) Milton v. Trate ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KYLE DAVID MILTON, 1:22-cv-01002-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR CLERK TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT 13 vs. JUDGE TO THIS CASE 14 TRATE, et al., AND 15 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE 16 BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS DUPLICATIVE OF CASE 1:22-CV-00988- 17 EPG-PC 18 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 19 20 21 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On August 11, 2002, Kyle David Milton (prison ID #17100-085) (“Plaintiff”), a federal 24 prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown 25 Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (ECF No. 1.) 26 Previously, on August 8, 2002, the same Plaintiff, Kyle David Milton (prison ID #17100- 27 085), filed a civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 28 case no. 1:22-cv-00988-EPG-PC; Milton v. Trate, et al. (case 22-988). 1 The Court finds that the two cases are duplicative, thus the later-filed case should be 2 dismissed with prejudice. 3 II. DUPLICATIVE CASES 4 “District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and ‘[i]n the exercise of 5 that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.’” 6 Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 7 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per 8 curiam)). “After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion 9 to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the previously 10 filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.” Adams, 11 497 F.3d at 688 (citing see Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138–39 (2d Cir. 2000); Walton 12 v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70–71 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc), cited with approval in Russ v. 13 Standard Ins. Co., 120 F.3d 988, 990 (9th Cir. 1997)). 14 “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same 15 subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams, 497 16 F.3d at 688 (quoting Walton, 563 F.2d at 70; see also Curtis, 226 F.3d at 138–39; Serlin v. Arthur 17 Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223–24 (7th Cir. 1993)). 18 “To determine whether a suit is duplicative, we borrow from the test for claim 19 preclusion.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 688. “[T]he true test of the sufficiency of a plea of ‘other suit 20 pending’ in another forum [i]s the legal efficacy of the first suit, when finally disposed of, as ‘the 21 thing adjudged,’ regarding the matters at issue in the second suit.” Id. (quoting The Haytian 22 Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 124 (1894)). “Thus, in assessing whether the second action is 23 duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the 24 parties or privies to the action, are the same.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 689 (citing see The Haytian 25 Republic, 154 U.S. at 124 (“There must be the same parties, or, at least, such as represent the 26 same interests; there must be the same rights asserted and the same relief prayed for; the relief 27 must be founded upon the same facts, and the . . . essential basis, of the relief sought must be the 28 same.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Curtis, 226 F.3d at 140 (holding that the trial court 1 did not abuse its discretion in dismissing “Curtis II claims arising out of the same events as those 2 alleged in Curtis I,” which claims “would have been heard if plaintiffs had timely raised them”); 3 Serlin, 3 F.3d at 223 (“[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not 4 significantly differ between the two actions.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 The court has reviewed the Complaints for this case and case no. 1:22-cv-00988-EPG- 7 PC and finds that the parties, causes of action, and relief sought are the same in the two cases. 8 Both Complaints arose from the same events that allegedly occurred at the Federal Correctional 9 Institution in Sheridan, Oregon and the United States Penitentiary-Atwater in Atwater, 10 California, while Plaintiff was incarcerated at those facilities in the custody of the Bureau of 11 Prisons. The defendants are the same in both cases: B.M. Trate (USP-Atwater Warden), Dr. R. 12 Paltenghi (USP-Atwater M.D.), and Dr. Grassely (F.C.I. Sheridan M.D.). In both cases, Plaintiff 13 alleges that his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth 14 Amendments were violated when Defendants Dr. Grassely and Dr. Paltenghi denied him life- 15 saving medication for a severe chronic condition even though two other doctors had approved a 16 treatment. In both cases, Plaintiff requests as relief $500,000, immediate treatment with 17 medication Suboxone or Methadone, and staff disciplined and re-trained on treatment of inmates. 18 Plaintiff also filed emergency motions for preliminary injunctive relief in both cases, to enforce 19 orders for medical treatment under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4001-4004, 4042, and 4081, and requesting 20 monetary damages, documentation of records, and compassionate release. (ECF No. 3.) (Case 21 22-988, ECF No. 1 at 13.) 22 IV. ORDER, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 23 Order 24 The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a United States district judge to this 25 action. 26 Conclusion and Recommendations 27 Based on the foregoing facts, the Court finds that this case is duplicative of case no. 1:22- 28 cv-00988-EPG-PC and should be dismissed with prejudice. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. This case be dismissed, with prejudice, as duplicative of case no. 1:22-cv-00988- 3 EPG-PC; and 4 2. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to administratively close this case. 5 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 6 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 7 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 8 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 9 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 10 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 11 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 12 (9th Cir. 1991)). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: August 18, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28