1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRED DORTON, No. 1:25-cv-00975-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. TO THIS ACTION 14 STEVE TORTORICE, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 15 Defendants. AS DUPLICATIVE 16 (ECF No. 5) 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Plaintiff filed the instant action on August 6, 2025. On August 12, 2025, the Court issued 20 an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed as duplicative of Dorton v. 21 Tortorice, Case No. 1:23-v-01784-JLT-GSA (PC). Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s 22 order and the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is warranted. 23 I. 24 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 25 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 26 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 27 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 28 1 “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that 2 “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 3 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 4 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 5 pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 6 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 7 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 8 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 9 that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. 10 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 11 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 12 liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 13 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 14 facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 15 that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 16 v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 17 has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 18 liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d 19 at 969. 20 II. 21 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 22 Plaintiff brings several claims against several different Defendants relating to his removal 23 from a First Camp program. Plaintiff alleges that his removal from the Fire Camp was in 24 retaliation for filing reasonable accommodation requests under the Americans with Disabilities 25 Act and other grievances and appeals, despite the fact that Plaintiff was medically cleared to 26 return and participate in the Fire Camp. 27 /// 28 /// 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) requires courts to screen prisoner 4 complaints and dismiss those that are frivolous or malicious, which encompasses duplicative 5 cases where a complaint merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 6 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 7 1995) (citing earlier version of § 1915(e)); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 30 (1992) 8 (recognizing Congress’s concern regarding IFP litigants “filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive 9 lawsuits”) (emphasis added). “To determine whether a suit is duplicative, we borrow from the test 10 for claim preclusion.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) 11 (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977)), overruled on other grounds by 12 Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). “ ‘[T]he true test of the sufficiency of a plea of 13 ‘other suit pending’ in another forum [i]s the legal efficacy of the first suit, when finally disposed 14 of, as ‘the thing adjudged,’ regarding the matters at issue in the second suit.’ ” Id. (second 15 alteration in original) (quoting The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 124 (1894)). 16 “Thus, in assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine 17 whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties ... to the action, are the 18 same.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 689; see also Serlin v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th 19 Cir. 1993) (“[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly 20 differ between the two actions.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “After weighing the equities 21 of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, 22 to stay that action pending resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from 23 proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. 24 Upon review of the allegations in the complaint, Plaintiff’s claims are duplicative of an 25 earlier lawsuit filed on December 29, 2023, Dorton v. Tortorice, Case No. 1:23-v-01784-JLT- 26 GSA (PC). In both cases Plaintiff alleges Plaintiff alleges that his removal from the Fire Camp 27 was in retaliation for filing reasonable accommodation requests under the Americans with 28 Disabilities Act and other grievances and appeals, despite the fact that Plaintiff was medically 1 | cleared to return and participate in the Fire Camp. The Court notes that Plaintiff sues the same 2 | Defendants, alleges the same facts and complaints, and seeks the same relief portions of his 3 | complaints contain verbatim allegations.'! Accordingly, this action must be dismissed as 4 | duplicative of Dorton v. Tortorice, Case No. 1:23-v-01784-JLT-GSA (PC). 5 IV. 6 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION 7 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly 8 | assign a District Judge to this action. 9 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the instant action be dismissed as 10 | duplicative of Dorton v. Tortorice, Case No. 1:23-v-01784-JLT-GSA (PC). 11 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 12 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
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 FRED DORTON, No. 1:25-cv-00975-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. TO THIS ACTION 14 STEVE TORTORICE, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 15 Defendants. AS DUPLICATIVE 16 (ECF No. 5) 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Plaintiff filed the instant action on August 6, 2025. On August 12, 2025, the Court issued 20 an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed as duplicative of Dorton v. 21 Tortorice, Case No. 1:23-v-01784-JLT-GSA (PC). Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s 22 order and the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is warranted. 23 I. 24 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 25 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 26 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 27 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 28 1 “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that 2 “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 3 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 4 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 5 pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 6 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 7 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 8 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 9 that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. 10 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 11 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 12 liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 13 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 14 facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 15 that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 16 v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 17 has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 18 liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d 19 at 969. 20 II. 21 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 22 Plaintiff brings several claims against several different Defendants relating to his removal 23 from a First Camp program. Plaintiff alleges that his removal from the Fire Camp was in 24 retaliation for filing reasonable accommodation requests under the Americans with Disabilities 25 Act and other grievances and appeals, despite the fact that Plaintiff was medically cleared to 26 return and participate in the Fire Camp. 27 /// 28 /// 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) requires courts to screen prisoner 4 complaints and dismiss those that are frivolous or malicious, which encompasses duplicative 5 cases where a complaint merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 6 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 7 1995) (citing earlier version of § 1915(e)); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 30 (1992) 8 (recognizing Congress’s concern regarding IFP litigants “filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive 9 lawsuits”) (emphasis added). “To determine whether a suit is duplicative, we borrow from the test 10 for claim preclusion.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) 11 (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977)), overruled on other grounds by 12 Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). “ ‘[T]he true test of the sufficiency of a plea of 13 ‘other suit pending’ in another forum [i]s the legal efficacy of the first suit, when finally disposed 14 of, as ‘the thing adjudged,’ regarding the matters at issue in the second suit.’ ” Id. (second 15 alteration in original) (quoting The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 124 (1894)). 16 “Thus, in assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine 17 whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties ... to the action, are the 18 same.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 689; see also Serlin v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th 19 Cir. 1993) (“[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly 20 differ between the two actions.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “After weighing the equities 21 of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, 22 to stay that action pending resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from 23 proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. 24 Upon review of the allegations in the complaint, Plaintiff’s claims are duplicative of an 25 earlier lawsuit filed on December 29, 2023, Dorton v. Tortorice, Case No. 1:23-v-01784-JLT- 26 GSA (PC). In both cases Plaintiff alleges Plaintiff alleges that his removal from the Fire Camp 27 was in retaliation for filing reasonable accommodation requests under the Americans with 28 Disabilities Act and other grievances and appeals, despite the fact that Plaintiff was medically 1 | cleared to return and participate in the Fire Camp. The Court notes that Plaintiff sues the same 2 | Defendants, alleges the same facts and complaints, and seeks the same relief portions of his 3 | complaints contain verbatim allegations.'! Accordingly, this action must be dismissed as 4 | duplicative of Dorton v. Tortorice, Case No. 1:23-v-01784-JLT-GSA (PC). 5 IV. 6 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION 7 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly 8 | assign a District Judge to this action. 9 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the instant action be dismissed as 10 | duplicative of Dorton v. Tortorice, Case No. 1:23-v-01784-JLT-GSA (PC). 11 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 12 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) 13 | days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 14 | objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages in length, including exhibits. The document should 15 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is 16 | advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 17 | appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 18 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 21 | Dated: _September 5, 2025 _ ef ES STANLEY A. BOONE 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 tn Case No. 1:23-cv-01784-ILT-GSA, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on March 11, 2025. (ECF No. 36.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28