1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CARL FOUST, Case No. 23-cv-03557-EMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v.

10 GODINEZ, et al., Docket Nos. 2, 5 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint and subsequently filed a copy of an order issued by 14 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See Docket Nos. 1, 8. It 15 appears Plaintiff filed the same claims, against the same defendants, regarding the same facts, in 16 the Eastern District of California. See Docket No. 1, Foust v. Allen, Case No. 23-cv-0179-DAD- 17 DMC (E.D. Cal. filed Jan. 30, 2023) (suing a fourth defendant in addition to the three named in 18 the Northern District action).1 19 Litigants may not file cases that duplicate claims brought in another case. See Cato v. 20 United States,

, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding in forma pauperis complaint that 21 merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed). 22 Mr. Foust’s decision to inform this Court of his identical action in the Eastern District suggests 23 that he recognizes this problem, and seeks to remedy it. See Docket No. 8. Thus, the Court 24 construes Mr. Foust’s filing as a notification that he did not intend to file the instant action. 25 The instant action is DISMISSED as opened in error. No filing fee is due for this 26

27 1 In Plaintiff’s Eastern District action, Defendants have responded to the complaint, and the matter 1 erroneously opened case, so Mr. Foust’s in forma pauperis applications are DENIED as moot. 2 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: March 29, 2024 6 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27