Ashwell Law v. State of Washington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DANIEL DWAYNE ASHWELL LAW, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00586-JHC 10 v. ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS DUPLICATIVE OF 2:25-CV-00584- STATE OF WASHINGTON, JHC 12 Defendant.

13 On April 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed duplicative lawsuits. Plaintiff’s first complaint, against the University of Washington and “Dr. Mat Williams,” alleges “Malicious torture by mafia, homosexual reprogramming” and “Manchurian torture through psychic driving.” Plaintiff avers the amount in controversy is “1.8 bil” dollars and as relief requests “Records of life absolved and remantled.” See 2:25-cv-00584-JHC. His second, and present complaint, is against the State of Washington and makes the same claim and seeks the same relief.

19 A plaintiff generally has no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant. Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). To determine if a second action is duplicative of the first, the Court examines if the causes of action, relief sought, and parties to both actions are the ||same.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 689. This examination involves assessing whether (1) the rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be impaired by prosecution of the second || action; (2) substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether the two || suits involve infringement of the same right; and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same || transactional nucleus of facts. Adams, 487 F.3d at 689. The last criterion—whether the two suits || arise out of the same transaction nucleus of facts—is the most important. /d.

7 After weighing the equities of the cases, the district court has the discretion to dismiss a || duplicative later-filed action or consolidate both actions. /d. at 688. Here, Plaintiff sues in his || first complaint a doctor ostensibly working for the University of Washington and the University 10 Suits against state officials or agencies that acted in their official capacity are “no different || from a suit against the State itself.” Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-825 (9th Cir. 2007).

12 || Additionally, a state, such as Washington, is generally immune from suit under the Eleventh |] Amendment. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 69 (1989) (Congress did not || override the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1983 actions). The Court finds || Plaintiff's second and present complaint is duplicative of his first and accordingly ORDERS: 16 1. This case is DISMISSED, and Plaintiff application to proceed in forma pauperis 17 STRICKEN as moot.

18 2. The Clerk shall provide Plaintiff a copy of this Order.

19 DATED this 4th day of April, 2025.

21 CLoha 4 Chun JOHN H. CHUN 22 United States District Judge ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS DUPLICATIVE OF 2:25-CV-00584-JHC - 2