(PC) Preston v. Posada

Opinion

NATHAN PRESTON, No. 2:22-cv-2252-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendant. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a complaint regarding the denial of unemployment benefits by California’s Employment Development Department. ECF No. 1. He has also filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is substantially similar to a complaint he filed only days earlier in this court. See Preston v. Posada, 22-cv-2199-CKD (E.D. Cal.) ECF No. 1. Because plaintiff has already commenced an action against the same defendant over the same dispute, this action is duplicative and should be dismissed.1 See Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1144 (E.D.

1 “Federal comity and judicial economy give rise to rules which allow a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a similar complaint has already been filed in another federal court.” Id. at 1145 (citation omitted). “[I]ncreasing calendar congestion in the federal courts makes it imperative to avoid concurrent litigation in more than one forum whenever consistent with the right of the parties.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979). } Cal. 1999) (when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another federal district court, the court has discretion to abate or dismiss the second action). Because plaintiff's filing of this duplicative action appears to have been in error, the court takes no action of plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to his action. Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as duplicative. 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 fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: January 5, 2023. □□ PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE