2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 ROBERT RAMIREZ, Case No. 3:25-cv-00685-ART-CLB

6 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING v. CASE 7 WASHOE COUNTY SHERIFF’S 8 OFFICE, et al.,

9 Defendants.

10 11 Nevada prisoner Robert Ramirez brings this pro se civil-rights action to 12 redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while in custody at 13 Washoe County Detention Center and strip searched for court appearances after 14 declaring an intent to sue about a medical issue. (ECF No. 1-1). Ramirez filed a 15 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 1). 16 Accompanying Ramirez’s initiating documents is a letter explaining that his 17 Complaint in this lawsuit “is the same complaint” from his other lawsuit that is 18 styled Ramirez v. Washoe Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 3:25-cv-00517-ART-CSD 19 (“Ramirez 1”). (ECF No. 1-2). Ramirez states that he filed this lawsuit because the 20 Nevada Department of Corrections lately returned the financial documents that 21 he sought to apply for IFP status in Ramirez 1. (Id. at 1). 22 I. DISCUSSION 23 “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions 24 involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against 25 the same defendant.’” Adams v. Cal. Dept. of Health Servs.,

, 688 26 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell,

(2008), (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp.,

, 70 (3d Cir. 1977)). In fact, 28 duplicative lawsuits by a litigant who is proceeding under IFP status may be 1 || dismissed as malicious and thus constitute a strike under the Prison Litigation 2 || Reform Act,

. See Cato v. United States,

, 1105 n.2 3 || (9th Cir. 1995). Although the November 21, 2025, deadline for Ramirez to apply 4 || for IFP status in Ramirez 1 has expired, that lawsuit has not been dismissed. 5 || Because Ramirez 1 is still active, Ramirez should not have filed a second lawsuit 6 || about the same issues. Rather, he should have filed his IFP application in 7 || Ramirez 1 and asked the court in that lawsuit to excuse his belated filing. 8 The Court will not assess Ramirez a strike at this time. But to avoid 9 || expending additional resources on this issue, the Court dismisses this action 10 || without prejudice to Ramirez’s ability to pursue his claims in Ramirez 1, and it 11 || directs the Clerk of Court to file Ramirez’s IFP application and explanatory letter 12 || in that lawsuit. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-2). Ramirez is advised that after the Clerk 13 || accomplishes this task, the Court will address his IFP application, letter, and 14 || Complaint in the ordinary course in Case No. 3:25-cv-00517-ART-CSD. Il. CONCLUSION 16 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice and 17 || without leave to amend because it is duplicative of the earlier-filed and still 18 || pending action styled Ramirez v. Washoe Cnty. Sheriff's Office, Case No. 3:25-cv- 19 || 00517-ART-CSD. If Robert Ramirez wishes to pursue claims about the strip 20 || searches, then he must do so in Case No. 3:25-cv-00517-ART-CSD. 21 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and file the application to 22 || proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and explanatory letter (ECF No. 1-2) in 23 || Case No. 3:25-cv-00517-ART-CSD. 24 25 DATED: December 2, 2025 26 f ), Vd 27 ANNE R. TRAUM 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE