(PC) Davis v. State of California - (CDCR), et al., No. 1:2018cv00849 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That This Case Be Dismissed as Duplicative of Case 1:18-CV-00832, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/28/2018: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME MARKIEL DAVIS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:18-cv-00849-LJO-EPG (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF CASE 1:18-CV-00832 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 17 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on June 21, 2018. (ECF No. 1). 18 As the complaint filed in this case is identical to the complaint Plaintiff filed in Davis v. State 19 of California, E.D. CA, Case No. 1:18-cv-00832 (ECF No. 1), the Court will recommend 20 dismissing this case as duplicative of Case 1:18-cv-00832. 21 “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same 22 subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams v. 23 California Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Walton v. Eaton 24 Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977)), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 25 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). 26 “To determine whether a suit is duplicative, we borrow from the test for claim 27 preclusion.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 688. “‘[T]he true test of the sufficiency of a plea of ‘other 28 suit pending’ in another forum [i]s the legal efficacy of the first suit, when finally disposed of, 1 1 as ‘the thing adjudged,’ regarding the matters at issue in the second suit.’” Id. (alteration in 2 original) (quoting The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 124 (1894)). “Thus, in assessing 3 whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of action 4 and relief sought, as well as the parties … to the action, are the same.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 5 689. See also Serlin v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (internal 6 quotation marks and citation omitted) (“[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and 7 available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.”). 8 “After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion to 9 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.” 11 Adams, 497 F.3d at 688. 12 On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California, which 13 is proceeding in Case No. 1:18-cv-00832, Davis v. State of California. It is not clear why, but 14 one day later, an identical complaint was docketed in the above-captioned case. Because 15 Plaintiff’s complaint was docketed twice, and because it is proceeding in an earlier filed case, 16 the Court will recommend that this case be dismissed, without prejudice. 17 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 18 1. 19 This action be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of Davis v. State of California, E.D. CA, Case No. 1:18-cv-00832; and 20 2. 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 23 (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 24 written objections with the Court. 25 Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.” 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. The document should be captioned “Objections to 2 1 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 2 the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 3 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 28, 2018 /s/ 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 3