(PC) Johnson v. Cates ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEDRIC EUGENE JOHNSON, No. 1:23-cv-00437 GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. TO THIS MATTER 14 BRIAN CATES, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS MATTER 15 Defendants. BE DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE 16 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DUE 17 DECEMBER 12, 2023 18 19 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this 20 civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 21 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. For the 22 reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that this matter be dismissed as 23 duplicative. 24 I. RELEVANT FACTS 25 On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant action in the Southern District of California. 26 At that time, the matter was identified as Johnson v. Cates, No. 3:23-cv-00415 WQH DEB 27 (“Johnson I”). Johnson I, ECF No. 1 at 1. 28 1 On March 9, 2023, another complaint filed by Plaintiff was docketed in the Eastern 2 District of California. The case was identified as Johnson v. Cates, No. 1:23-cv-00361 GSA 3 (“Johnson II”). 4 On March 23, 2023, Johnson I was transferred to this district. ECF No. 5. As a result, the 5 case number currently assigned to Johnson I is Johnson v. Cates, No. 1:23-cv-0437 GSA. See 6 Johnson I, ECF No. 6 at 1 (first informational order with new case name). 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 A comparison of the complaint in Johnson I with the one in Johnson II indicates that the 9 two pleadings are identical.1 Compare Johnson I, ECF No. 1 at 1-15, with Johnson II, ECF No. 1 10 at 1-15. A plaintiff not entitled to simultaneously maintain two separate actions involving the 11 same subject matter against the same defendant. Mendoza v. Amalgamated Transit Union 12 International, 30 F.th 879, 886 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Therefore, it will be 13 recommended this matter, Johnson I, which was officially put on the Eastern District’s docket 14 later than Johnson II, be dismissed as duplicative. Plaintiff shall be given fourteen days to file 15 objections to this order. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 17 District Judge to this action. 18 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED as duplicative of 19 Johnson v. Cates, No. 1:23-cv-00361 GSA. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 22 after being served with these findings and recommendations – in this case, by December 12, 23 2023 – Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Said document should be captioned 24 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 25 26 27 1 The content of the two complaint forms is identical. However, Johnson I, has attachments to it that appear to be forms sent to Plaintiff by the Court. See Johnson I, ECF No. 1-1, 1-2 28 (attachments to Johnson I complaint). 1 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 2 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: November 27, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28