Turner v. Mary Place ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 SUMMER TURNER, CASE NO. C22-356 RSM 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 MARY PLACE, 12 Defendant. 13 14 Plaintiff Summer Turner, representing herself, has been granted leave to proceed in forma 15 pauperis in this matter. Dkt. #7. Plaintiff’s proposed complaint has been docketed, but 16 summonses have not been issued. Dkt. #8. Reviewing this matter of its own accord, the Court 17 dismisses the action as duplicative of an earlier lawsuit Plaintiff has filed with this Court. 18 As noted, this is the second of two cases that Plaintiff has filed with this Court against 19 defendant “Mary Place.” Plaintiff’s first action was against defendant Mary Place and other 20 defendants providing housing assistance in King County and, in overly broad terms, asserted that 21 the named defendants had not provided her adequate support and assistance, resulting in harm to 22 herself and young son. See Turner v. Mary Place, Case No. 22-cv-00124-RSM, Dkt. #5 at 3–5 23 (W.D. Wash. 2022) (“Turner I”). 24 1 Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this second action against Mary Place and asserted 2 substantially similar claims. Plaintiff herself appears to believe that his action is duplicative as 3 her second complaint references Turner I and indicates that “this is [Plaintiff] reapplying since 4 no one returned my calls . . . or told me my court date.” Dkt. #8 at 3. 5 The Court has reviewed both operative complaints and has found that the matters are 6 substantially related and appear duplicative. Concurrent with this order, the Court has issued an 7 order in Turner I, finding the Turner I complaint insufficient under applicable pleading standards 8 and ordering Plaintiff to file an amended complaint superseding the original and expounding on 9 her Turner I claims. Because the claims of the two actions are at a minimum substantially similar, 10 and because nothing prevents Plaintiff from asserting additional claims in her amended Turner I 11 complaint, the Court finds that this matter should be dismissed. See Cato v. United States, 70 12 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (IFP compliant that repeats pending claims is abusive and 13 properly dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Aziz v. Burrows, 976 F.2d 1158 (9th Cir. 1992) 14 (“district courts may dismiss a duplicative complaint raising issues directly related to issues in 15 another pending action brought by the same party”); Adams v. California Dept. of Health 16 Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two 17 separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against 18 the same defendant.’”). Scarce judicial resources are not well spent by twice addressing the same 19 claims. 20 Accordingly, and having considered the issue, the Court finds and ORDERS that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s complaint in this action (Dkt. #8) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 22 2. To the extent Plaintiff’s complaint in this action alleges claims that she believes are not 23 duplicative of Turner I claims, Plaintiff may include the non-duplicative claims in the 24 amended complaint she has been ordered to file in Turner I. 1 3. This action is CLOSED. 2 4. The Clerk is requested to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at 720 Blanchard St., 3 Seattle, WA 98121. 4 DATED this 7th day of June, 2022. 5 A 6 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 7 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24