(PC) Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail et al, No. 2:2013cv01994 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/14/13 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed as duplicative. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF

(PC) Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail et al Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRELL D. HALL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-1994-MCE-EFB P v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 17 18 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Before the court is plaintiff’s September 24, 2013 complaint. ECF No. 1. 19 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress 20 from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 22 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 23 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 24 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 25 This action was opened when plaintiff mailed a complaint to the court, without 26 referencing a case number. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff states that he had previously mailed the 27 28 1 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 complaint to the court in February, and that he received various court orders in response. Id. at 4. 2 He explains that he is resending the complaint because of his fear that prison officials have 3 tampered with his mail and possibly falsified documents from this court. Id. Attached to the 4 complaint are documents from Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail, 2:13-cv-324-AC. See id. at 8; 5 see also Hall, ECF No. 21 (Third Amended Complaint); ECF No. 29 (screening order allowing 6 action to proceed on certain claims). It is not clear whether plaintiff intended to file the instant 7 complaint in that earlier filed action, or instead, intended to commence this new action. 8 Regardless, this action must be dismissed as it is plainly duplicative of the earlier action 9 that plaintiff is now litigating. See Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1144 (E.D. Cal. 1999) 10 (when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another federal 11 district court, the court has discretion to abate or dismiss the second action). “Federal comity and 12 judicial economy give rise to rules which allow a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an 13 action when a similar complaint has already been filed in another federal court.” Id. at 1145 14 (citation omitted). “[I]ncreasing calendar congestion in the federal courts makes it imperative to 15 avoid concurrent litigation in more than one forum whenever consistent with the right of the 16 parties.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979). 17 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, this action should be dismissed and 18 plaintiff should proceed on the action he initially commenced. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 19 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (A complaint that “merely repeats pending or previously litigated 20 claims” may be dismissed as frivolous under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915). 21 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as duplicative. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 25 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 2 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 Dated: November 14, 2013. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.