(PC)Johnson v. California Department of Corrections et al, No. 2:2022cv00276 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 6/12/2023 RECOMMENDING that this action 1 be dismissed with prejudice as duplicative of Plaintiff's pending action before the Court, case no. 2:21-cv-02348-WBS-DMC. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to U.S. District Judge Dale A. Drozd; Objections to these F&Rs due within fourteen days.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Johnson v. California Department of Corrections et al Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRELL JOHNSON, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:22-CV-0276-DAD-DMC Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint. See ECF No. 1. 20 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 21 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 23 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 24 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 25 Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and 26 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 8(a)(2). This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. 28 Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds 2 upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff 3 must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which 4 support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it 5 is impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are 6 vague and conclusory. 7 I. 8 PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) California Department of 9 Corrections and Rehabilitation; (2) Kathleen Allison, the former secretary of CDCR; (3) Giselle 10 Matteson, the warden of California State Prison, Solano. See ECF No. 1, pg. 2. Plaintiff alleges 11 one claim for relief. Plaintiff states that he received surgical treatment for Osteomyelitis, an infection 12 13 in the bone of his right foot, while at CMC San Luis Obispo. See id. at 3. Once the surgery was 14 completed, Plaintiff was transferred to Solano State Prison between February 14-15, 2020. See 15 id. Plaintiff contracted Covid-19 at Solano State Prison on December 24, 2020. See id. Plaintiff 16 alleges that he contracted the virus due to the massive movement of prisoners into Solano State 17 Prison. See id. Plaintiff states that he filed a grievance, but that he did not pursue any level of 18 19 appeal because his “legal paperwork was stolen” after he was released from prison on May 14, 20 2021. See id. at 1. Plaintiff also states that he takes psychological medication for a mental 21 disability, “[does] not understand nothing going on,” and that he received “no effective 22 communication” during his time in prison. See id. at 3. 23 Plaintiff filed an identical complaint on December 3, 2021, and that case is still 24 pending. See Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-02348-WBS-DMC, Complaint filed December 3, 2021 25 (ECF No. 1). 1 26 /// 27 28 1 The complaint cited is an exact photocopy of this complaint. 2 1 II. 2 3 DISCUSSION As discussed below, the Court finds the instant action to be duplicative and will recommend it be dismissed as such. 4 “After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its 5 discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action.” Adams v. California Dep't of Health 6 Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 7 U.S. 880, 904 (2008)). “It is well established that a district court has broad discretion to control 8 its own docket, and that includes the power to dismiss duplicative claims.” M.M. v. Lafayette 9 Sch. Dist., 681 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir. 2012). If the court finds that a claim is duplicative in 10 nature, then it can exercise its discretion and hold that it is not appropriate to maintain the claim. 11 See id. In M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist., the plaintiff challenged the individual education 12 13 program of the Lafayette School District. Id. at 1084. The plaintiff alleged that their son did not 14 receive a proper assessment plan for the special education program. Id. The plaintiff first filed 15 suit against the California Department of Education on November 8, 2008. See id. at 1085. The 16 plaintiff filed suit again on August 11, 2009, against several other defendants and included 17 additional claims against the California Department of Education. See id. The district court 18 found that the plaintiff stated its new claim in “identical terms” of their pending claims and 19 dismissed the duplicative claim. See id. at 1091. 20 Here, the facts are similar to the facts in M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist. Plaintiff 21 previously submitted this exact complaint to the Court and is in the process of litigation. See 22 Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-02348-WBS-DMC. Plaintiff’s claim is even more duplicative than the 23 duplicative claims in M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist. because Plaintiff did not just use “identical 24 terms” of his previous action but submitted a photocopy of his existing complaint. Because this 25 action is duplicative of a previously filed and currently pending action, the Court should dismiss 26 this case. 27 /// 28 /// 3 1 2 III. CONCLUSION Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 3 cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 4 the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 5 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be 6 dismissed with prejudice as duplicative of Plaintiff’s pending action before the Court, case no. 7 2:21-cv-02348-WBS-DMC. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 9 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 10 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 11 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 12 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 13 See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 15 Dated: June 12, 2023 ____________________________________ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
