Steven R.G. Candler v. Abram Caro

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01409
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN R.G. CANDLER, No. 1:25-cv-01409-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS 13 v. DUPLICATIVE OF CASE NO. 1:24-cv-00301- KES-SAB (PC) 14 ABRAM CARO, (ECF No. 1) 15 Defendant.

16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint, filed October 22, 2025. 20 I. 21 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 22 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 23 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 24 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 25 “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that 26 “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 28 1 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 2 pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 3 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 4 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 5 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 6 that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. 7 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 9 liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 10 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 11 facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 12 that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 13 v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 14 has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 15 liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d 16 at 969. 17 II. 18 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 19 Plaintiff brings a failure to protect claim against Defendant Abram Caro. Defendant 20 Abram Caro was the bailiff in the courtroom on the day that Plaintiff was being sentenced in state 21 court. It was the first time Plaintiff observed officer Caro working as the bailiff. Caro placed 22 Plaintiff into a holding cell that had four general population inmates in it. However, Plaintiff was 23 supposed to be placed in protective custody. Caro failed to label the door reflecting Plaintiff’s 24 classification requirement. Plaintiff was subsequently attacked by inmates while in the holding 25 cell. 26 /// 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, it appears that Plaintiff’s claim is 25 duplicative of an earlier lawsuit filed on March 12, 2024, Candler v. Caro, Case No. 1:24-cv- 26 00301-KES-SAB (PC). In both cases Plaintiff alleges that Bailiff Caro failed to protect him 27 physical injury by other inmates by improperly placing him in the general population and not 28 protective custody. The Court notes that Plaintiff sues the same Defendant, alleges the same facts 1 | and complaints, and seeks compensatory damages.'! Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to 2 | show cause why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative. See Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. 3 | Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that a court should give notice and an 4 | opportunity to respond before dismissing a case on claim preclusion grounds). 5 IV. 6 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 7 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that this case appears to be duplicative of 8 | Plaintiff's prior case because the claims, parties, and requested relief do not significantly differ 9 | between the two actions. 10 Accordingly, it is itis HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed as duplicative 12 within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order; 13 2. Alternatively, Plaintiff is advised that he may file a notice stating that he wishes to 14 voluntarily dismiss this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(@); and 15 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 1g | Dated: _ October 29, 2025 " STANLEY A. BOONE 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 'Tn Case No. 1:24-cv-00301-KES-SAB (PC), Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on June 7, 2024,(ECF No. 28 36), which was dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief on August 6, 2025, (ECF No. 20).