(PC) Williams v. Nocha

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 27, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01506
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:24-cv-01506-CDB (PC)

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS 10 v. DUPLICATIVE OF CASE NUMBER 1:22- CV-00095-KES-SKO (PC) 11 A. NOCHA, et al., (Doc. 1) 12 Defendants. 21-DAY DEADLINE 13 14 Plaintiff Lance Williams is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 15 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint initiating this action and a Motion to Proceed in 16 Forma Pauperis on December 3, 2024. (Docs. 1, 2). 17 Previously, on December 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint in Williams v. 18 Rocha, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00095-KES-SKO (PC) (“Williams I”) (Doc. 1).1 It appears that 19 Plaintiff’s complaint in the instant action advances nearly identical allegations as advanced in the 20 Williams I action noted above regarding correctional officers’ failure to protect, use of excessive 21 force upon Plaintiff, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and retaliation against 22 Plaintiff in violation of his civil rights from June 27, 2021, to August 7, 2021. (Doc. 1). On 23 November 6, 2024, the Court dismissed Williams I without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s motion 24 to dismiss filed on November 4, 2024, that was construed to be an unopposed motion for 25 voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Williams 26 I, Doc. 59 at 3). 27

1 The Court may take judicial notice of court records. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 1 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 2 Because Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, prior 3 to issuance of summonses, the Court will consider and resolve issues such as jurisdiction and 4 whether a complaint states a claim sua sponte. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 5 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 2011) (subject matter jurisdiction); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-362 6 (9th Cir. 1981) (failure to state a claim). When reviewing a complaint sua sponte, the Court must 7 dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the litigant has raised claims that are legally “frivolous 8 or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary 9 relief from a defendant(s) who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 “A complaint ‘that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims’” is subject to 12 dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1995) 13 (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)). “[A] duplicative action arising 14 from the same series of events and alleging many of the same facts as an earlier suit” may be 15 dismissed as frivolous or malicious under section 1915(e). See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. 16 “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of 17 proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the ‘comprehensive disposition of litigation.’” 18 Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 692 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), 19 overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). Thus, “[p]laintiffs 20 generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the 21 same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (quoting 22 Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977)), overruled on other grounds by Sturgell, 23 553 U.S. at 904). 24 To determine whether a suit is duplicative, courts “borrow from the test for claim 25 preclusion.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. “‘[T]he true test of the sufficiency of a plea of ‘other suit 26 pending’ in another forum [i]s the legal efficacy of the first suit, when finally disposed of, as ‘the 27 thing adjudged,’ regarding the matters at issue in the second suit.’” Id. (second alteration in 1 the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief 2 sought, as well as the parties . . . to the action, are the same.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 689; see Serlin 3 v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, 4 parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.”) (citation and 5 internal quotation marks omitted). 6 “After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion to 7 dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the previously 8 filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.” Adams, 9 487 F.3d at 688. 10 In the instant complaint, Plaintiff raises claims against Defendants correctional officers A. 11 Nocha and H. Florez and Lieutenant M. Magallanes, all of whom are employed at Corcoran State 12 Prison. (Doc. 1 at 1–2). Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages of $100,000 from 13 each named Defendant. (Id. at 10). Plaintiff alleges Defendants Nocha and Florez failed to 14 protect him from being repeatedly harmed by his cellmate on June 27, 2021, and issued to 15 Plaintiff a “115 rules violation” in retaliation. (Id. at 3, 5, 6). Plaintiff alleges that on July 18, 16 2021, he was put in imminent danger of serious physical injury from an alleged assault and 17 battery perpetrated by Defendant Florez and threats from Florez and Defendant Magallanes. 18 (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that on July 23, 2021, Florez continued to make threats to Plaintiff’s safety. 19 (Id. at 6, 7, 8). Plaintiff alleges that on August 7, 2021, Florez retaliated against Plaintiff by 20 issuing a 115 rules violation and threatened him once again. (Id. at 9). 21 In his earlier filed complaint before the Honorable U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto 22 (filed December 16, 2021), Plaintiff raised nearly identical claims against the same named 23 Defendants and sought compensatory and punitive damages of $1,000,000 from each named 24 Defendant. (Williams I, Doc. 1 at 10). 25 Since Plaintiff’s claims appear to be identical to his claims in Williams I, the Court will 26 order Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative of Case No. 27 1:22-cv-00095-KES-SKO (PC). 1 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within 21 days from the date of this order, 3 | Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative of Case 4 No. 1:22-cv-00095-KES-SKO (PC). 5 Any failure by Plaintiff to comply with this Order will result in the imposition of 6 | sanctions, including a recommendation to dismiss of the entire action without prejudice. 7 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (stating that dismissal is warranted “[i]f the plaintiff fails to ... comply 8 | with ... a court order”); see Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 9 | (9th Cir. 2005); 10 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: December 27, 2024 | hr 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28