1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES MAURICE DUCKETT, 11 Case No. 24-cv-00536 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL 13 v.

14 P. GARCIA, 15 Defendant.

16

17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42

against Correctional Officer P. Garcia for events that occurred at Salinas 20 Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to 21 proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff is currently at the California Medical 22 Facility. Dkt. No. 6. 23 Plaintiff filed a previous action in this district against the same Defendant, making 24 the same allegations as in the instant action and seeking damages. The previous action, 25 Duckett v. Garcia, Case No. 23-cv-04748 BLF (“Duckett I”), was served on Defendant and 26 is pending briefing.

Dkt. Nos. 13, 19. 27 Duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject 1 || th Cir. 1988). An in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or previously 2 || litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under § 1915. Cato v. United 3 || States,

, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. An in forma 4 || pauperis complaint repeating the same factual allegations asserted in an earlier case, even 5 || ifnow filed against new defendants, therefore is subject to dismissal as duplicative. 6 || Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021; Van Meter v. Morgan,

(8th Cir. 1975). 7 || “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment 8 || of proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the “comprehensive disposition of g || litigation.” Adams vy. California,

, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), 10 || overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell,

(2008). Here, 11 || Plaintiffs case is duplicative of Duckett I because the two suits arise out of the same 2 transactional nucleus of facts, i.e., a cross-gender body search by Defendant P. Garcia on E 13 || January 9, 2020, in violation of Plaintiff's civil rights. Compare Dkt. No. 8 at 3 with S 14 || Duckett I, Dkt. No. 1 at 4. As this case is duplicative of Duckett J, the instant action will 3 15 || be dismissed.

CONCLUSION 5 18 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED as duplicative. 19 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 20 IT ISSO ORDERED. 21 || Dated: April 29, 2024 fanaa BETH LABSON FREEMAN 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 Order of Dismissal PRO-SE\BLF\CR.24\00536Duckett_dism(dupl) 26 27