(PC) Flores v. CCWF

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ENID MARIE FLORES, Case No. 1:19-cv-01681-AWI-JDP 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED AS 13 v. FRIVOLOUS BECAUSE IT IS DUPLICATIVE OF CASE 1:19-cv-01509- CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL NONE-JLT WOMEN’S FACILITY, et al., 15 OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS Defendants.

Plaintiff Enid Marie Flores is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action.

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on November 12, 2019. ECF No. 1. On April 6, 2020, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this case was not duplicative of Flores v. Cal. Corr. Women’s Facility, No. 1:19-cv-01509. In response and in other filings, plaintiff has not disputed that the cases are duplicative. See ECF Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21.

Duplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to dismissal as either frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See, e.g., Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 26 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977)), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).

4 “To determine whether a suit is duplicative, we borrow from the test for claim preclusion.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 688. “‘[T]he true test of the sufficiency of a plea of ‘other suit pending’ in another forum [i]s the legal efficacy of the first suit, when finally disposed of, as ‘the thing adjudged,’ regarding the matters at issue in the second suit.’” Id. (quoting The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 124 (1894)). “Thus, in assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties . . .

10 to the action, are the same.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 689. See also Serlin v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (“[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.”).

14 On October 23, 2019, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California and that is proceeding in Flores v. Cal. Corr. Women’s Facility, No. 1:19-cv-01509. Three weeks later, plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action. Several pages of the complaints are identical. The allegations are identical. The defendants are identical. The only difference in the complaints is that plaintiff includes more exhibits attached to her complaint in Flores, No. 1:19- cv-01509, at ECF No. 1.

20 Findings and Recommendations 21 It is hereby recommended that this case be dismissed as frivolous because it is duplicative of Flores v. Cal. Corr. Women’s Facility, No. 1:19-cv-01509. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court judge presiding over this case under 28 24 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days of the service of the findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be captioned “Objections to wOoOw 4:40 EVOL VERT MVOC oe PO Ve hee OY VV VI || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will then review the | findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

4 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° : —\N prssnnn — Dated: _ June 12, 2020 6 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | No. 204.