Keiron M. Elias v. Hubbard, et al.

Opinion

KEIRON M. ELIAS, No. 2:26-cv-1711 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS HUBBARD, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil action and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, it has come to the court’s attention that the claims in the complaint are nearly identical to those in Elias v. Hubbard (Elias I), No. 2:26-cv-1470 CSK (E.D. Cal.), which was filed by the Clerk of the Court on April 8, 2026. Both complaints allege that that plaintiff is an educator and religious leader and that defendant Hubbard has violated her rights under the First Amendment by refusing to provide her with free copies of registration packets and pamphlets for her to distribute. Although the instant complaint alleges that the refusal to provide free copies was a second violation and adds the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as a defendant, the facts and alleged violation are otherwise identical to and clearly occurred in close temporal proximity with the //// //// alleged refusal in Elias I.! Plaintiff “has no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” MHC Fin. Ltd. P’ship v. City of San Rafael, 714 F.3d 1118, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013). It will therefore be recommended that this action be dismissed as duplicative. The recommended dismissal will be without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint in Elias I. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of Elias v. Hubbard, No. 2:26-cv-1470 CSK (E.D. Cal.). These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: May 7, 2026 ~ Chee ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 In Elias I, plaintiff alleges that Hubbard refused to provide copies on April 8, 2026. Elias I, ECF No. 1 at 3. In this case, while plaintiff does not identify the date of the refusal, the complaint was submitted for e-filing on May 4, 2026, and includes a grievance related to the issue dated May 1, 2026. ECF No. 1 at 7; ECF No. 1-1.