(PC) Saragoza v. Doe ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENITO JOSE SARAGOZA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00496-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS AS DUPLICATIVE OF 13 v. PREVIOUSLY FILED CASE 14 JOHN DOE, et al., FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 Clerk of Court to assign a district judge. 17 18 Plaintiff Benito Jose Saragoza is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 19 action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action (“Saragoza II”) on April 3, 2023. 20 (Doc. 1.) The Court finds this case is duplicative of a pending case Plaintiff filed1 on March 6, 21 2023, Saragoza v. John Doe No. 1, Case No. 1:23-cv-00355-BAM (“Saragoza I”). Therefore, the 22 Court recommends the dismissal of this case. 23 I. LEGAL STANDARD 24 “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same 25 subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams v. 26 Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 27 1 Plaintiff originally filed his complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District 1 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977)), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 2 904 (2008). To determine whether a case is duplicative of a previously filed case, courts apply 3 the test for claim preclusion and examine whether the parties, the causes of action, and the relief 4 sought are the same. Adams, 487 F.3d at 689. Whether a case is duplicative turns on the “legal 5 efficacy of the first suit, when finally disposed of, as ‘the thing adjudged,’ regarding the matters 6 at issue in the second suit.” Id. at 688–89 (quoting The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 124 7 (1894)). 8 “District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and ‘[i]n the exercise of 9 that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.’” 10 Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 11 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)). “After weighing the equities of the 12 case, the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to 13 stay that action pending resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from 14 proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (citing Walton, 563 15 F.2d at 70–71). 16 II. DISCUSSION 17 In both Saragoza I and Saragoza II, Plaintiff names as defendants four John Does and 18 one Jane Doe, correctional officers (“COs”) at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff describes these 19 defendants as “unprofessional, disrespectfully, willing to wrong, hatred.” 20 The single claim raised concerns an incident that occurred on May 21, 2014, when he 21 was moved to a new cell. When the COs took him to the new cell, the female CO slammed the 22 cell door and called him a “politick bitch.” They were speaking Spanish, so Plaintiff assumed 23 they were Mexican. The cellmate said he is in a single cell and wanted this “J-cat”2 out of his 24 cell, and he slapped Plaintiff in the back of the head. The next day, his cellmate reached for his 25 penis; when Plaintiff moved away, the cellmate beat him. 26 The supporting facts in both cases reference his grievances, Log Nos. 337100 and 27 338821, and restates many of the same allegations. Some verbiage differs. For example, in 1 Saragoza I, Plaintiff refers to the assault and PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act); in Saragoza 2 II, Plaintiff does not mention the PREA but instead characterizes the incidents as sexual assault 3 and rape. In Saragoza II, Plaintiff adds that his sexual assault allegation was not handled in 4 accordance with procedures, and his allegation was recorded as a fight. 5 The requests for relief in the cases are substantively the same, with only slight variation in 6 language. In each case, Plaintiff seeks $70,000 for physical and mental pain. Plaintiff alleges that 7 he continues to suffer pain in his back, neck, and pain; something is sticking from his neck; his 8 spine is not straight; he suffers from mental stress and emotional distress; he has dreams about 9 being raped; and he has been feeling “lost.” 10 Plaintiff attached different exhibits to his pleadings. In Saragoza I, Plaintiff attached 11 documents from the administrative process. In Saragoza II, Plaintiff submits a single-page letter 12 to clarify that he has only filed Saragoza I and Saragoza II. Plaintiff states that he received legal 13 mail on March 18, 2023, referencing Case No. “CV23-01707 CAS (MRW),” purportedly 14 concerning COVID-19. However, the Court’s electronic case management and filing system 15 (“CM-ECF”) does not reflect a case with that case number in this district. A search of Plaintiff’s 16 name in the CM-ECF system reveals that Plaintiff has only filed this case and Saragoza I in this 17 district. The inclusion of the exhibit to Saragoza II, as well as the exclusion of his grievances and 18 CDCR decisions, do not affect the substance of his claims, which involve the same parties, 19 allegations, and relief sought in Saragoza I. 20 The Court finds that the present case, Saragoza II, Case No. 1:23-cv-00496-CDB, filed on 21 April 3, 2023, is duplicative of Saragoza I, Case No. 1:23-cv-00355-BAM, filed on March 9, 22 2023. Because Saragoza I remains open and the relief sought is identical, Plaintiff would not be 23 prejudiced by the dismissal of this case. 24 IV. CONCLUSION 25 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed and the Clerk of 26 Court be directed to administratively close this case. 27 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 1 | (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 2 | objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 3 | Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 4 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 5 | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. 7 | ITIS ORDERED. Dated: _ April 7, 2023 | hr 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28