Allen v. Cardenas ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES EDWARD ALLEN, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0788-JAH-RBM CDCR #D-76353, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 vs. 1) DENYING MOTION TO INQUIRE 14 [ ECF No. 8]; 15 J. CARDENAS; RALPH M. DIAZ; 2) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 16 W.L. MONTGOMERY; M. POLLARD; TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE L. WOOD; M. CARRILLO, 17 CASE; Defendants. 18 AND 19 3) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 20 TO FILE COMPLAINT AS SECOND 21 AMENDED COMPLAINT IN 19cv1610 22 23 24 Charles Edward Allen (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner incarcerated at Calipatria State 25 Prison located in Calipatria, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 26 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 I. Procedural History 2 Plaintiff filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 27, 3 2020. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff names Correctional Officer Cardenas, 4 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Diaz, Warden 5 Montgomery, Chief Deputy Warden Pollard, Captain Wood and Lieutenant Carrillo as 6 Defendants. (Id. at 3-4.) 7 The Court initially dismissed this action because Plaintiff failed to file a Motion to 8 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) or pay the initial civil filing fee. (See Apr. 30, 2020 9 Order, ECF No. 3.) 10 Plaintiff later filed a “Motion [to] Inform of a Letter to Inform the Court why the 11 Plaintiff return[ed] the document that this Court sent to the Plaintiff.” (See Pl.’s Mot., 12 ECF No. 5 at 1.) Plaintiff states in this Motion that he refused mail that he had received 13 from the Court because he believes that it was opened outside his presence.1 (See id.) 14 Plaintiff has now filed a “Motion to [I]nquire about Legal Document that was sent 15 back to the Court.” (See Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 8.) In this Motion, Plaintiff requests that 16 the Court “confirm/verify that the document that the plaintiff sent back to the court is the 17 document that the court sent to the plaintiff on May 7. 2020.” (Id.) 18 II. Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 8) 19 It is not at all clear what document the Plaintiff is referring to in his Motion. 20 Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion but will direct the Clerk of Court to 21 provide Plaintiff with a copy of the Court’s docket. However, a review of Plaintiff’s 22 Complaint indicates that he may not have intended his Complaint to initiate a new action. 23 A court may take judicial notice of its own records, see Molus v. Swan, Civil Case 24 No. 3:05-cv-00452-MMA-WMc, 2009 WL 160937, *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2009) (citing 25 26 27 1 However, Plaintiff mistakenly assumes that mail from the Court is “legal mail.” See Kennan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996) (Holding that mail from the courts, as contrasted to mail from a 28 1 United States v. Author Services, 804 F.2d 1520, 1523 (9th Cir. 1986)); Gerritsen v. 2 Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2015), and “‘may take 3 notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, 4 if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 5 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 6 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council 7 v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 Here, the Court takes judicial notice of the previous action Plaintiff filed in Allen v. 9 Cardenas, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:19-cv-01610-JAH-RBB (“Allen I”). The 10 facts alleged in Allen I involve the same set of facts against the same Defendants that are 11 contained in this matter. (See Id., ECF No. 23, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 12 (“FAC”).) In Allen I, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s FAC for failing to state a claim on 13 April 1, 2020. (See id., Apr. 1, 2020 Order, ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff was granted thirty 14 days leave to file an amended complaint to correct the problems with his pleading as 15 identified by the Court. (See id.) The Court later sua sponte granted Plaintiff an 16 extension of time to file his amended pleading no later than July 15, 2020. (See id., Apr. 17 27, 2020 Order, ECF No. 35.) 18 In the current case (“Allen II”), it appears that Plaintiff likely intended this to be his 19 amended pleading in Allen I. However, Plaintiff did not label it as an amended pleading 20 or provide the Allen I case number on the pleading and therefore, it was opened as a new 21 case. 22 According, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to close this matter and file 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) as his Second Amended Complaint in Allen I. Plaintiff 24 is cautioned that he must label all future filings in Allen I with the proper case number. 25 III. Conclusion and Orders 26 For the reasons explained, the Court: 27 1) DENIES Plaintiff’s “Motion to Inquire about Legal Document” (ECF No. 8) 28 2) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s docket ] |/in this matter and a copy of the Court’s docket in 3:19-cv-01610-JAH-RBB. 2 3) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff’ s Complaint (ECF No. 1) as 3 || Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in 3:19-cv-01610-JAH-RBB. 4 4) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to administratively close this matter. This 5 || matter will not constitute a “strike” for 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) purposes. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 || Dated: June 22, 2020 10 Hgn. John A. Houston ll ynited States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28