Dean Himbler Aviles v. Heather L. Cohen

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 23, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-03899
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEAN HIMBLER AVILES, ) Case No. CV 20-3899-JGB (JPR) 12 ) Plaintiff, ) 13 ) ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S v. ) COMPLAINT AS DUPLICATIVE 14 ) HEATHER L. COHEN, ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ) 17 18 On April 29, 2020, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a 19 civil-rights action against Defendant Long Beach Police Detective 20 Heather L. Cohen in her individual and official capacities, 21 seeking damages. (Compl. at 1-2, 4.) He was subsequently 22 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 23 Plaintiff alleges that on March 14, 2018, Defendant “failed 24 to stop and protect [him] from Federal Protective Service 25 Officers using excessive force and injuring [him], causing [him] 26 to have a brain concussion.” (Compl. at 2; see id. at 1.) He 27 also asserts that she “false[ly]” accused him in a police report 28 of assaulting the officers and that “[a]s a result . . . [he] was 1 1 falsely imprisoned for 656 days.” (Id. at 2.) He appears to be 2 referring to an incident that resulted in his being taken into 3 federal custody and charged with assaulting a federal officer 4 with a deadly and dangerous weapon, causing bodily injury. (See 5 id. (citing United States v. Aviles, No. 2:18-CR-00175-CAS-1 6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018))); Compl. & Aff. Supp. Compl. at 2, 7 Aviles, No. 2:18-CR-00175-CAS-1, ECF No. 1; Indictment, id., ECF 8 No. 10. On February 28, 2020, after a jury trial, he was 9 acquitted of that charge and a lesser included offense. See 10 Redacted Jury Verdict, id., ECF No. 108. 11 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are virtually identical 12 to those he raised against Long Beach Police Detective Jason Ur — 13 who allegedly assisted Cohen in arresting Plaintiff, see Aff. 14 Supp. Compl. at 4, 6-7, id., ECF No. 1 — in a civil-rights action 15 he filed on March 19, 2020. See Aviles v. Ur, No. 2:20-CV—02621- 16 JGB (JPR) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020). The Court dismissed that 17 action with leave to amend on April 13, 2020. See Apr. 13, 2020 18 Dismissal Order, id., ECF No. 7. On May 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed 19 a First Amended Complaint in that case, adding Cohen as a 20 Defendant based on conduct identical to that alleged here. See 21 FAC at 2, id., ECF No. 8 (alleging that on Mar. 14, 2018, Cohen 22 and Ur “assault[ed]” him, causing “bodily injury,” and “[f]alsely 23 [a]ccused, . . . [and] [a]rrested him,” resulting in his 24 “[f]alse[] [i]mprison[ment] . . . for 656 days”). The Court 25 dismissed the FAC with leave to amend because Plaintiff 26 improperly brought his claims against Ur and Cohen under the 27 False Claims Act. It warned him, however, that if he amended 28 that case to raise civil-rights claims against Cohen, this action 2 1 “would likely be duplicative and would be subject to dismissal on 2 that basis.” June 2, 2020 Dismissal Order at 7 n.1, id., ECF No. 3 9. 4 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint in the Ur case was due 5 on July 3, 2020. On July 8, he filed what purport to be arrest 6 warrants and criminal complaints against Ur and Cohen, which the 7 Court has construed as his Second Amended Complaint. Thus, it 8 appears he intends to pursue his claims against Cohen with those 9 against Ur in that case. In the federal-court system, “the 10 general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation.” Colo. 11 River Water Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 12 (1976). “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two 13 separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same 14 time in the same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams 15 v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) 16 (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. 17 Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). A district court may 18 exercise its discretion to control its docket by dismissing a 19 duplicative, later-filed action. Id. Here, allowing this 20 separate, later-filed action to proceed when Plaintiff intends to 21 pursue his claims against Cohen in the Ur case would be 22 duplicative. See id. And because he has amended the earlier- 23 filed Ur matter to include his claims against Cohen, he would not 24 be prejudiced by dismissal of this case. On the other hand, 25 permitting it to proceed would cause unnecessary duplication of 26 effort by the Court and Defendant and a waste of scarce judicial 27 resources. See Porter v. Mabus, 457 F. App’x 619, 620 (9th Cir. 28 2011) (holding that district court did not abuse discretion by 3 1 | dismissing plaintiff’s claims that were duplicative of claims in > | other pending actions). 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case be dismissed as 4 duplicative.

|| DATED: July 23, 2020 ——i- { wos JESUS G. BERNA 7 U.| DISTRICT JUDGE 8 g || Presented by: 10 11 ean Rosenbluth U.S. Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28