1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10 * * *

11 Adrian Johnson, Case No. 2:20-cv-00436-KJD-BNW

12 Plaintiff, ORDER AND REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION

14 Jeremy Pickett, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed In Forma Pauperis application (ECF No. 5), his 18 complaint (ECF No. 1), and a motion requesting the screening of the complaint (ECF No. 6). 19 In Forma Pauperis Application 20 Plaintiff demonstrated an inability to prepay fees or costs or give security for them. 21 Accordingly, the court will grant his request to proceed in forma pauperis. The court now screens 22 Plaintiff’s complaint. 23 Complaint and Request to Screen 24 Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 25 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any 27 claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 2 (2). 3 In the process of screening this complaint, the Court noticed that on page six of his 4 complaint, Plaintiff indicates that there is another case currently pending in this district (19-cv- 5 2224-RFB-NJK) arising out of the same or similar facts alleged in the instant complaint. Indeed, 6 the complaint filed in case No. 19-cv-2224-RFB-NJK is based on the same facts, and alleges 7 many of the same counts, as those underlying the instant complaint.1 Because the Court will 8 screen that complaint in due course, the Court recommends that the complaint in this case be 9 dismissed with prejudice. See Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc.,

(9th 10 Cir. 1991) (when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in 11 another federal district court, the court has discretion to abate or dismiss the second action).2 As a 12 result, this Court recommend that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice and denies the 13 request to screen as moot. 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 15 5) is granted. 16 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) be 17 dismissed with prejudice and that the request to screen the complaint (ECF No. 6) be denied as 18 moot. 19 NOTICE 20 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 21 to this case under

(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 22 may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 23 served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 24

25 1 In fact, Plaintiff has a pending motion to stay in case No. 19-cv-2224-RFB-NJK 26 recognizing that his complaint alleges facts tied to an on-going criminal case which has not yet been adjudicated. 27 2 While that case relies on principles of comity, the underlying rationale of trying to avoid 1 || objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

, 2 || 1157 (th Cir. 1991). 3 4 DATED: August 31, 2020 ; 6 Ln gw bea ne bain ENDA WEKSLER 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28