Keiron M. Elias v. Hubbard, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 8, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-01711
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEIRON M. ELIAS, No. 2:26-cv-1711 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 HUBBARD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil action and seeks leave to 18 proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, it has come to the court’s 19 attention that the claims in the complaint are nearly identical to those in Elias v. Hubbard (Elias 20 I), No. 2:26-cv-1470 CSK (E.D. Cal.), which was filed by the Clerk of the Court on April 8, 21 2026. Both complaints allege that that plaintiff is an educator and religious leader and that 22 defendant Hubbard has violated her rights under the First Amendment by refusing to provide her 23 with free copies of registration packets and pamphlets for her to distribute. Although the instant 24 complaint alleges that the refusal to provide free copies was a second violation and adds the 25 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as a defendant, the facts and alleged 26 violation are otherwise identical to and clearly occurred in close temporal proximity with the 27 //// 28 //// 1 || alleged refusal in Elias I.! 2 Plaintiff “has no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter 3 || at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” MHC Fin. Ltd. P’ship v. 4 | City of San Rafael, 714 F.3d 1118, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013). It will therefore be recommended that 5 || this action be dismissed as duplicative. The recommended dismissal will be without prejudice to 6 || the filing of an amended complaint in Elias I. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 8 | assign a United States District Judge to this action. 9 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice as 10 || duplicative of Elias v. Hubbard, No. 2:26-cv-1470 CSK (E.D. Cal.). 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 13 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 14 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 15 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 16 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 17 | (9th Cir. 1991). 18 || DATED: May 7, 2026 ~ 19 Chee ALLISON CLAIRE 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 In Elias I, plaintiff alleges that Hubbard refused to provide copies on April 8, 2026. Elias I, 27 || 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 28 | dated May 1, 2026. ECF No. 1 at 7; ECF No. 1-1.