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-JLT-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED ON 13 v. NOVEMBER 18, 2025 14 ABRAM CARO, (ECF No. 14)

15 Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 16 AS DUPLICATIVE OF CASE NO. 1:24-CV- 00301-KES-SAB (PC) 17

18 19 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42

. 21 I. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 22, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) On October 29, 2025, 24 the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed as duplicative of 25 Candler v. Caro, Case No. 1:24-cv-00301-KES-SAB (PC). (ECF No. 8.) 26 Plaintiff filed a response on November 17, 2025. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff submits that he 27 intended to file his complaint in the California Supreme Court and requests that the Court redirect 28 1 the complaint to that Court. (Id.) On the operative complaint form, Plaintiff states that 2 jurisdiction is pursuant to the “California Supreme Court, 350 McAllister St. San Francisco, CA 3 94102.” (ECF No. 1 at 1.) 4 Based on Plaintiff’s response, the Court found that it was clear Plaintiff intended to file 5 the instant complaint in the California Supreme Court. Therefore, on November 18, 2025, the 6 Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending Plaintiff’s response be construed as 7 a request for voluntary dismiss and the action be dismissed. (ECF No. 14.) 8 On this same date, Plaintiff filed a motion for immediate release. (ECF No. 13.) Therein, 9 as much as the Court can decipher, Plaintiff appears to seek immediate release based on a plea 10 deal in 2016 and defense counsel’s incompetence. (ECF No. 13.) 11 On November 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel seeking photographs of the 12 attack which took place at the Visalia courthouse. (ECF No. 15.) 13 On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 14 (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff requests that the Court compel photographs be turned over and his case 15 not be dismissed. (Id.) 16 Based on Plaintiff’s most recent filings, it now appears that he does not wish to dismiss 17 this action. However, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order to show cause as to why 18 this action should not be dismissed as duplicative of case no. 1:24-cv-00301-KES-SAB (PC), 19 despite having ample opportunity to do so. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed as 20 duplicative. 21 II. 22 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 23 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 24 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 25 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 26 “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that 27 “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 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,

(2009) (citing Bell 5 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 6 that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v.

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,

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,

; Moss 13 v. U.S. Secret Service,

(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,

; Moss,

. 17 III. 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 IV. 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

1915A;

(e)(2)(B)(i); Cato v. United States,

, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 7 1995) (citing earlier version of § 1915(e)); see also Denton v. Hernandez,

(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.,

, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) 11 (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp.,

(3d Cir. 1977)), overruled on other grounds by 12 Taylor v. Sturgell,

(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.’ ”

(second 15 alteration in original) (quoting The Haytian Republic,

(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.,

, 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, Plaintiff’s claim is duplicative of an 25 earlier lawsuit filed on March 12, 2024, Candler v. Caro, Case No. 1:24-cv-00301-KES-SAB 26 (PC). In both cases Plaintiff alleges that Bailiff Caro failed to protect him physical injury by 27 other inmates by improperly placing him in the general population and not protective custody. 28 The Court notes that Plaintiff sues the same Defendant, alleges the same facts and complaints, 1 || and seeks compensatory damages.! Accordingly, the instant action should be dismissed as 2 | duplicative.

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION 5 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s Findings and 6 | Recommendations issued on November 18, 2025, (ECF No. 14) are VACATED. 7 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as duplicative of 8 || Case No. 1:24-cv-00301-KES-SAB (PC). 9 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 11 | days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 12 | objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages in length, including exhibits. The document should 13 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is 14 | advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 15 | on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 16 |

(9th Cir. 1991)). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 19 | Dated: _December 15, 2025 _ OO STANLEY A. BOONE 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' Case No. 1:24-cv-00301-KES-SAB (PC) was dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief on August 28 | 6, 2025, and judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 20, 21).