2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MICHAEL WHITFIELD, Case No. 3:20-cv-00643-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8

9 NEVADA STATE PERSONNEL, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11

12 Pro se Plaintiff Michael Whitfield brings this action under Title VII. (ECF No. 1-1.) 13 Although Plaintiff filed his complaint, he did not file an application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis, nor did he pay the $400 filing fee. Before the Court is a Report and 15 Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3), 16 recommending the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint because it is duplicative of another 17 pending case, Whitfield v. Nevada State Personnel, Case No. 3:20-cv-00637-MMD-WGC 18 (“the 637 case”). Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 4 (“Objection”).) Because 19 the Court agrees with Judge Cobb’s analysis and as further explained below, the Court 20 will accept the R&R and will dismiss Plaintiff’s case. 21 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 23 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 24 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 25 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

The Court’s review is thus de novo 26 because Plaintiff filed his Objection. (ECF No. 4.) 27 Plaintiff’s complaint in this action is identical to the complaint he filed in the 637 28 2 due process clause, claims for disparate treatment and impact, claims for wrongful 3 termination, and claims for a hostile work environment. (Id. at 11-13.) Because there is no 4 difference between the two complaints, Judge Cobb recommends dismissing the later- 5 filed action. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) The Court agrees. 6 “Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the 7 same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” 8 Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs.,

, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on 9 other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell,

(2008). In the federal court system, “the 10 general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation.” Col. River Water Conservation Dist. v. 11 United States,

(1976). A district court may exercise its discretion to 12 control its doket by dismissing a duplicative, later-filed action. See id.; see also Curtis v. 13 Citibank, N.A.,

(2d Cir. 2000) (“[a]s part of its general power to 14 administer its docket, a district court may stay or dismiss a suit that is duplicative of another 15 federal court suit.”). Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants federal 16 district courts the authority to sua sponte dismiss actions. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding a federal district court may dismiss a case as part 18 of its “inherent power to control [its] docket”). 19 Plaintiff writes in his Objection that the cases are not the same. (ECF No. 4 at 1.) 20 He reasons that the 637 case is “against Christina Senior and family” while this case is 21 “against the State of Nevada about wrongful termination.” (Id.) But this is not reflected in 22 the complaints he has filed. The content is the same, the claims are the same, and the 23 parties are the same. The Court finds that the duplicative case should be dismissed. The 24 637 case may proceed, and Plaintiff may file any claims not covered by the 637 case in a 25 new action, provided he files the proper application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays 26 27 1Plaintiff’s complaint in the other case was accompanied by 19 exhibits which are 28 not present here. Whitfield v. Nev. State Pers., Case No. 3:20-cv-00637-MMD-WGC (ECF No. 1). 1 || the $400 filing fee. 2 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's objection (ECF No. 4) to the Report and 3 || Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb is overruled. The Report and 4 || Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) is accepted in 5 || part, and rejected in part, as provided herein. 6 It is further ordered that this case is dismissed as duplicative of Case No. 3:20-cv- 7 || 00637-MMD-WGC. 8 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 9 DATED THIS 18" Day of March 2021. 10 ~~ 11 ASA 12 MIRANDA M. DU 13 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28