(PC) Dailey v. Wellpath

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHARON N. DAILEY, No. 2:24-cv-00669-DAD-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WELLPATH, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action removed from state court on March 1, 2024. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

20 I. Procedural History 21 Before the court could screen the second amended complaint that was removed from state court, plaintiff filed another amended complaint on April 11, 2024 that is the operative pleading before the court. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967) (citations omitted) (explaining that once an amended complaint is filed the original one is “treated thereafter as non- existent.”). Plaintiff labeled this pleading as the first amended complaint, and the court will keep this designation. ECF No. 16.

27 II. Screening Requirement 28 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

5 II. First Amended Complaint 6 Plaintiff alleges that while a pretrial detainee at the Solano County Jail, she was denied proper medical care for various conditions which caused her permanent injuries. Named as defendants are Wellpath, Dr. Dinesh Nagar, Attorney Michael McDonald, Lieutenant Andrew Hagen, Lieutenant Katherine Raymos, Sergeant Jeff Poblete, and the Solano County Sheriff. The amended complaint raises a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim based on deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs as well as a state law negligence claim against defendants.

13 IV. Analysis 14 Examination of the first amended complaint and review of court records reveal that plaintiff’s amended complaint contains allegations that are identical to, and therefore duplicative of, claims raised in Dailey v. Ellis, No. 2:23-cv-00786-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.). “A complaint ‘that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims’” is subject to dismissal under 28 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Bailey v. 19 Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)). “[A] duplicative action arising from the same series of events and alleging many of the same facts as an earlier suit” may be dismissed as frivolous or malicious under section 1915(e). See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. Having reviewed the facts and allegations alleged in Dailey v. Ellis, this court finds that this earlier filed civil action involves the same allegations against the same defendants at the Solano County Jail. Based on this analysis, the undersigned recommends dismissing plaintiff’s first amended complaint as duplicative of Dailey v. Ellis, No. 2:23-cv-00786-TLN-CSK. It is further recommended that the second amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.

27 ///// ///// ] V. Plain Language Summary for Party Proceeding Without a Lawyer 2 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not || intended as legal advice.

4 The court has reviewed the allegations in your first amended complaint and determined || that they are the exact same claims filed in an earlier case that is currently pending in this same || court. The law does not allow the same claims to be raised in multiple lawsuits. Because this || action was removed to federal court later in time, it is recommended that it be dismissed. You || may continue to pursue these claims in Dailey v. Ellis, No. 2:23-cv-00786-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.).

9 If you do not agree with this recommendation, you can explain why it is not correct.

10 || Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

11 | The district judge assigned to your case will review the file and make the final decision.

12 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. Plaintiffs first amended complaint (ECF No. 16) be dismissed as duplicative and that 14 leave to amend be denied.

15 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this action.

16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

24 | Dated: October 8, 2024 / □□ I / dle ae 25 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 2% UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE || 12/dail0669.F&R duplicative