1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY XAVIER SANCHEZ, Case No. 1:26-cv-01223-FRS (BAM) (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 14 KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S DISMISS ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE DEPARTMENT, (ECF No. 1) 15 Defendant. FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff Jeremy Xavier Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was initiated 19 on February 12, 2026. (ECF No. 1.) 20 I. Screening Requirement and Standard 21 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding pro se and in forma 22 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 23 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 24 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 26 II. Plaintiff’s Allegations 27 Plaintiff is currently housed at Wasco State Prison in Wasco, California. The events in the 28 complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at the Lerdo Pre-Trial Facility 1 in Bakersfield, California. Plaintiff names the Kern County Sheriff’s Department as the sole 2 defendant. 3 Plaintiff alleges that at 8 p.m. on June 14, 2025, general population gang members came 4 into the protective custody F4 pre-trial pod and attacked Plaintiff and the protective custody 5 inmates with homemade knives. Plaintiff was hospitalized and now has PTSD nightmares. The 6 gang members came through a locked door only the sheriff’s officers have access to. 7 The Kern County Sheriff’s Department did not take seriously Plaintiff’s complaint/letter 8 detailing his unanswered grievances and detailing his trip to the hospital, and replied with a 9 response on September 22, 2025, that the July 1, 2025 riot was unfounded when Plaintiff clearly 10 stated the riot was on June 14, 2025 at 8 p.m. Internal Affairs and the Kern County Sheriffs as a 11 whole is denying Plaintiff due process, stating his claims of being in a violent riot are not true and 12 making his process to a fair civil rights claim unfair. 13 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. 14 III. Duplicative Action 15 A. Sanchez v. Kern County Sheriffs Dept., Case No. 1:25-cv-01949-HBK (PC) 16 On December 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed Sanchez v. Kern County Sheriffs Dept., Case No. 17 1:25-cv-01949-HBK (PC) (“Sanchez I”).1 Following a screening order, on January 29, 2026, 18 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) 19 In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff names the Kern County Sheriffs Dept. as the sole 20 defendant. Plaintiff alleges that at the Lerdo Pre-Trial Facility, on June 14, 2025, at 8 p.m., the 21 doors controlled by the Kern County Sheriffs Dept. that separate protective custody inmates from 22 general population opened, allowing knife-wielding inmates into a protective custody pod. The 23 Sheriff’s Dept. failed to protect them, causing mental and physical harm. A riot ensued and 24 Plaintiff sustained injuries to his right hand and PTSD. 25 On August 5, 2025, Plaintiff sent a letter to internal affairs regarding the June 14, 2025 26 riot. Internal affairs responded on September 22, 2025 stating on July 1, 2025 a thorough 27 investigation about his complaint was determined unfounded. The riot happened June 14, 2025 at
28 1 The Court takes judicial notice of the files in that case. Fed. R. Evid. 201. 1 8 p.m. The officer who investigated clearly did not do his job therefore stalling Plaintiff’s civil 2 case and denying him due process. 3 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Sanchez I, First Am. Compl., ECF No. 7. 4 B. Legal Standard 5 Duplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to 6 dismissal as either frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See, e.g., Cato v. United 7 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 574 8 (10th Cir. 1997); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994–95 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 9 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). A complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated 10 claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under § 1915. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; 11 Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a 12 stay or the enjoinment of proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the comprehensive 13 disposition of litigation.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 692–93 (9th Cir. 14 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). 15 “[I]n assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether 16 the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” 17 Adams, 487 F.3d at 689 (citations omitted). “Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two 18 separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against 19 the same defendant.” Id. at 688 (internal quotations and citations omitted). That plaintiff was 20 denied leave to amend does not give plaintiff the right to file a second, duplicative lawsuit. If the 21 causes of action and relief sought are the same and involve the same parties or their privies, the 22 duplicative lawsuit may be dismissed with prejudice. Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. 23 C. Discussion 24 The allegations in the first amended complaint in Sanchez I are identical to the allegations 25 in the complaint filed in the instant action. Both cases name the Kern County Sheriffs 26 Department as the sole defendant. In both cases, Plaintiff alleges claims arising from a riot that 27 occurred on June 14, 2025 at the Lerdo Pre-Trial Facility when general population inmates were 28 allowed to proceed through a locked door to attack protective custody inmates with knives. 1 Plaintiff also alleges that he was denied due process when his grievances were not taken seriously 2 or investigated properly by internal affairs. 3 Based on this review, the Court finds it appropriate to recommend dismissal of this action 4 as duplicative of Sanchez I. 5 IV. Order and Recommendation 6 Based on the foregoing, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly 7 assign a District Judge to this action. 8 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as 9 duplicative. 10 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 11 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 12 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 13 file written objections with the court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY XAVIER SANCHEZ, Case No. 1:26-cv-01223-FRS (BAM) (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 14 KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S DISMISS ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE DEPARTMENT, (ECF No. 1) 15 Defendant. FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff Jeremy Xavier Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was initiated 19 on February 12, 2026. (ECF No. 1.) 20 I. Screening Requirement and Standard 21 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding pro se and in forma 22 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 23 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 24 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 26 II. Plaintiff’s Allegations 27 Plaintiff is currently housed at Wasco State Prison in Wasco, California. The events in the 28 complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at the Lerdo Pre-Trial Facility 1 in Bakersfield, California. Plaintiff names the Kern County Sheriff’s Department as the sole 2 defendant. 3 Plaintiff alleges that at 8 p.m. on June 14, 2025, general population gang members came 4 into the protective custody F4 pre-trial pod and attacked Plaintiff and the protective custody 5 inmates with homemade knives. Plaintiff was hospitalized and now has PTSD nightmares. The 6 gang members came through a locked door only the sheriff’s officers have access to. 7 The Kern County Sheriff’s Department did not take seriously Plaintiff’s complaint/letter 8 detailing his unanswered grievances and detailing his trip to the hospital, and replied with a 9 response on September 22, 2025, that the July 1, 2025 riot was unfounded when Plaintiff clearly 10 stated the riot was on June 14, 2025 at 8 p.m. Internal Affairs and the Kern County Sheriffs as a 11 whole is denying Plaintiff due process, stating his claims of being in a violent riot are not true and 12 making his process to a fair civil rights claim unfair. 13 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. 14 III. Duplicative Action 15 A. Sanchez v. Kern County Sheriffs Dept., Case No. 1:25-cv-01949-HBK (PC) 16 On December 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed Sanchez v. Kern County Sheriffs Dept., Case No. 17 1:25-cv-01949-HBK (PC) (“Sanchez I”).1 Following a screening order, on January 29, 2026, 18 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) 19 In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff names the Kern County Sheriffs Dept. as the sole 20 defendant. Plaintiff alleges that at the Lerdo Pre-Trial Facility, on June 14, 2025, at 8 p.m., the 21 doors controlled by the Kern County Sheriffs Dept. that separate protective custody inmates from 22 general population opened, allowing knife-wielding inmates into a protective custody pod. The 23 Sheriff’s Dept. failed to protect them, causing mental and physical harm. A riot ensued and 24 Plaintiff sustained injuries to his right hand and PTSD. 25 On August 5, 2025, Plaintiff sent a letter to internal affairs regarding the June 14, 2025 26 riot. Internal affairs responded on September 22, 2025 stating on July 1, 2025 a thorough 27 investigation about his complaint was determined unfounded. The riot happened June 14, 2025 at
28 1 The Court takes judicial notice of the files in that case. Fed. R. Evid. 201. 1 8 p.m. The officer who investigated clearly did not do his job therefore stalling Plaintiff’s civil 2 case and denying him due process. 3 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Sanchez I, First Am. Compl., ECF No. 7. 4 B. Legal Standard 5 Duplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to 6 dismissal as either frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See, e.g., Cato v. United 7 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 574 8 (10th Cir. 1997); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994–95 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 9 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). A complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated 10 claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under § 1915. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; 11 Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a 12 stay or the enjoinment of proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the comprehensive 13 disposition of litigation.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 692–93 (9th Cir. 14 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). 15 “[I]n assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether 16 the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” 17 Adams, 487 F.3d at 689 (citations omitted). “Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two 18 separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against 19 the same defendant.” Id. at 688 (internal quotations and citations omitted). That plaintiff was 20 denied leave to amend does not give plaintiff the right to file a second, duplicative lawsuit. If the 21 causes of action and relief sought are the same and involve the same parties or their privies, the 22 duplicative lawsuit may be dismissed with prejudice. Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. 23 C. Discussion 24 The allegations in the first amended complaint in Sanchez I are identical to the allegations 25 in the complaint filed in the instant action. Both cases name the Kern County Sheriffs 26 Department as the sole defendant. In both cases, Plaintiff alleges claims arising from a riot that 27 occurred on June 14, 2025 at the Lerdo Pre-Trial Facility when general population inmates were 28 allowed to proceed through a locked door to attack protective custody inmates with knives. 1 Plaintiff also alleges that he was denied due process when his grievances were not taken seriously 2 or investigated properly by internal affairs. 3 Based on this review, the Court finds it appropriate to recommend dismissal of this action 4 as duplicative of Sanchez I. 5 IV. Order and Recommendation 6 Based on the foregoing, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly 7 assign a District Judge to this action. 8 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as 9 duplicative. 10 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 11 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 12 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 13 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 14 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 15 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 16 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 17 limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 18 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 19 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 20 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22
23 Dated: February 21, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24
25 26 27 28