Dease v. Koehn et al, No. 3:2013cv00609 - Document 3 (D. Nev. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice in deference to the first-filed action in 3:13-cv-00424-MMD-WGC. The Clerk shall enter final judgment accordingly, which shall close the present action. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 01/03/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
Download PDF
Dease v. Koehn et al Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 WESS DEASE, 9 Plaintiff, 3:13-cv-00609-RCJ-VPC 10 vs. ORDER 11 12 MICHAEL KOEHN, et al. 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 This prisoner civil rights action comes before the Court on plaintiff’s application (#1) to proceed in forma pauperis and for initial review. 17 On August 7, 2013, plaintiff’s pauper application submitted with a civil rights complaint 18 was received and filed in No. 3:13-cv-00424-MMD-WGC. That same day, the Clerk of Court 19 sent plaintiff a notice of the docketing of the action along with the docket number. On August 20 16, 2013, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, submitted under that docket 21 number, was received and filed along with a purported proposed amended complaint. 22 On November 4, 2013, the Clerk received and filed in this action a pauper application 23 submitted with, inter alia, a complaint. The papers were submitted without a docket number, 24 and every indication in the multiple papers submitted reflected that a new civil action was 25 being tendered for filing. The Clerk opened that new action in this matter. 26 The complaint in this matter, No. 3:13-cv-00609-RCJ-VPC, is duplicative of the 27 complaint in No. 3:13-cv-00424-MMD-WGC. There are only minor changes in the complaint 28 in this action along the lines of those outlined in the motion to amend in the prior action. 1 The Court is going to give plaintiff the benefit of the doubt. If plaintiff submits a pauper 2 application with a complaint with no docket number, the papers will be docketed by the Clerk 3 as a new civil action. If plaintiff commences another duplicative action in this fashion, the 4 Court not only will dismiss the duplicative action but also will order that he pay the full $350.00 5 filing fee in installments drawn from his inmate account. Filing a duplicative action wastes 6 limited judicial resources and will not result in plaintiff’s claims being adjudicated more 7 expeditiously than otherwise. What the filing of another duplicative action will result in is 8 plaintiff being required to pay an additional $350.00 filing fee for the duplicative action. This action accordingly will be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of the first- 9 10 filed action. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action shall be DISMISSED without prejudice 11 12 in deference to the first-filed action in 3:13-cv-00424-MMD-WGC. The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment accordingly, which shall close the present 13 14 15 action. DATED: January 3, 2014 16 17 18 19 ____________________________________ ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-