Recinos v. State of Washington

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7 TIFFANY RECINOS , 8 Plaintiff, Case No. C23-5433 RSM 9 v. ORDER DISMISSING CASE 10 WASHINGTON STATE, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 On May 11, 2023, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an application to proceed in forma 13 pauperis and a proposed complaint against several defendants, including the Social Security 14 Administration. See Dkt. 1. On May 15, 2023, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s submission but 15 found it to be duplicative of an earlier complaint Plaintiff had filed on March 7, 2023—in both 16 complaints, Plaintiff challenges the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny benefits 17 under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Dkt. 3; Recinos v. Comm’r of Social Security, 3:23-cv-5183-TLF. 18 The Court, taking into consideration of Plaintiff’s pro se status, explained that she is not allowed 19 to purse two separate actions. See id. at 2–3 (citing Adams v. California Dept. of Health 20 Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two 21 separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against 22 the same defendant.’”)). The Court, therefore, ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why this 23 case should not be dismissed as duplicative, on or before June 5, 2023. See id. at 2–3. 1 On May 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s order, but in her response, 2 Plaintiff only further challenged the decision of the Commissioner and included several 3 statements unrelated to her complaints. See Dkt. 5. The Court finds Plaintiff’s response fails to 4 show why this case is not duplicative of her March 2023 claim. Accordingly, the Court 5 ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (“After 6 weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a 7 duplicative later-filed action . . . ”). Plaintiff also filed a proposed motion to appoint counsel on 8 May 26, 2023 (Dkt. 6), but as the Court is dismissing this case, the Court terminates that motion 9 as moot. 10 DATED this 12th day of June, 2023.

11 12 A 13 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16

18 19 20 21 22 23