Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01389/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01389-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY MCCLELLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAT HEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01389-LJO-DLB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS

DUPLICATIVE AND DIRECTING CLERK

OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE

Plaintiff Gregory McClellan (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate at Lerdo Pretrial Detention Facility

proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this

action on August 4, 2010, with an accompanying motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff 1

attests that he has two pending cases in the Eastern District of California: McClellan v. Fink, et

al., 1:10-cv-00208-MJS, and McClellan v. Kern County Sheriff’s Office, et al., 1:10-cv-00386-

LJO-MJS. The former concerns Plaintiff’s allegations against parole officers who found Plaintiff

had violated parole conditions; the latter concerns, inter alia, Plaintiff’s housing in Lerdo Pretrial

Detention Facility with inmates who have HIV and other contagious diseases, like Hepatitis C. 

Both of these allegations are made in this action.

“After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion to

Plaintiff has accrued three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and is ineligible to proceed in forma

1

pauperis unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court takes judicial notice of the following

cases: McClellan v. Mountain, 1:08-cv-00256-LJO-GSA PC (dismissed for failure to state a claim on 03/05/2009);

McClellan v. Fink, 1:08-cv-01326-YNP PC (dismissed for failure to state a claim on 04/01/2009); McClellan v.

Haviland, 1:07-cv-01607-OWW-SMS PC (dismissed for failure to state a claim on 10/19/2009).

1

Case 1:10-cv-01389-LJO-DLB Document 4 Filed 08/06/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the previously

filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.” Adams

v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007). “Plaintiffs generally

have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same

time in the same court and against the same defendants.’” Id. (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp.,

563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc)). “[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and

available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” Id. at 689.

The present action, Case No. 1:10-cv-01389-DLB (PC), is duplicative of Case Nos. 1:10-

cv-00208-MJS and 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS. Plaintiff brings the same cause of action,

regarding the same issues and factual allegations, in the same court, against the same defendants. 

The only difference is that Plaintiff’s other cases involve more defendants.

Accordingly, in light of the duplicative nature of the instant action to the Plaintiff’s

previously filed actions, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the instant action is DISMISSED as

duplicative and that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-01389-LJO-DLB Document 4 Filed 08/06/10 Page 2 of 2