Nicole B. Silverberg v. Sandford H. Barsky

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6] Nicole B. Silverberg, Case No. 2:25-cv-02148-CDS-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), g REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. Sandford H. Barsky, 10 Defendant(s).

11 Plaintiffs “generally have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same 12|| subject matter at the same time in the same court against the same defendant.” Mendoza v. 13] Amalgamated Transit Union Int’l, 30 F 4th Cir. 879, 886 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation and quotation 14] marks omitted). In in forma pauperis cases involving screening, “[t]here is no abuse of discretion 15] where a district court dismisses under § 1915[e] a complaint ‘that merely repeats pending or 16] previously litigated claims.’” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing 17|| Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (Sth Cir. 1988)).

18 The proposed complaint submitted here subject to screening, Docket No. 1-2, is identical 19] to Plaintiff's complaint that was already screened and filed on the docket in another pending case, 20|| see Silverberg v. Barsky, Case No. 2:25-cv-02197-GMN-EJY, Docket No. 1-1 (D. Nev. Nov. 5, 21|| 2025); see also id., Docket No. 7 (D. Nev. Nov. 13, 2025) (screening order). Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed and closed.!

23 Dated: December 5, 2025 ee 24 A Bo Nancy-J. pe 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26) ————__"DW@/»/_> ' Plaintiff's other case was initiated five days after this case was initiated. It would 27| generally be the later-initiated case that would be dismissed on duplication grounds. In the circumstance of this case, however, the latter case is more advanced given that the screening order 28] has already issued and the complaint has been filed on the docket.

1 NOTICE 2 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 7 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).