Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00290/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00290-2/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

CRAIG SIMONSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00290-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS 

DUPLICATIVE OF 1:16-CV-00126-LJOMJS

(ECF No. 1)

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has declined Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 15.) No other parties have appeared.

Plaintiff initiated this action on February 12, 2016 against Defendants Singh, Wigt, 

and the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department. (ECF No. 1.) His complaint is awaiting 

screening by the Court. On September 1, 2016, it was determined that this lawsuit was 

brought against defendants and raised claims substantially similar to those in a suit filed 

by Plaintiff on January 27, 2016: Simonson v. Singh, Case No. 1:16-cv-00126-LJO-MJS. 

(ECF No. 18.) Consequently, the Court issued an order reassigning Case No. 1:16-cvCase 1:16-cv-00290-LJO-MJS Document 20 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 4
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

2

00290 to the undersigned, before whom Case No. 1:16-cv-00126 was already pending. 

(Id.) 

The Court now finds that the claims raised in Case No. 1:16-cv-00290 were 

already raised in Case No. 1:16-cv-00126, rendering the instant complaint duplicative of 

the older complaint.

“District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and ‘[i]n the 

exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default 

or dismissal.’” Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 

2007) (overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008))

(quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. Of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 

1986) (per curiam)). “After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may 

exercise its discretion to 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, 497 F.3d at 688; see also Curtis v. 

Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138-39 (2d Cir. 2000); Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 

70-71 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc), cited with approval in Russ v. Standard Ins. Co., 120 

F.3d 988, 990 (9th Cir. 1997)). 

“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 

defendant.’” Adams, 497 F.3d at 688 (quoting Walton, 563 F.2d at 70; see also Curtis, 

226 F.3d at 138-39; Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223-24 (7th Cir. 1993)).

“To determine whether a suit is duplicative, we borrow from the test for claim 

preclusion.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 688. “[T]he true test of the sufficiency of a plea of 

‘other suit pending’ in another forum [i]s the legal efficacy of the first suit, when finally 

disposed of, as ‘the thing adjudged,’ regarding the matters at issue in the second suit.” 

Id. (quoting The Haytain Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 124 (1894)). “Thus, in assessing 

whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of 

action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” 

Case 1:16-cv-00290-LJO-MJS Document 20 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Adams, 497 F.3d at 689. (see The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. at 124 (“There must be 

the same parties, or, at least, such as represent the same interests; there must be the 

same rights asserted and the same relief prayed for; the relief must be founded upon the 

same facts, and the . . . essential basis, of the relief sought must be the same.” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)); Curtis, 226 F.3d at 140 (holding that the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in dismissing “Curtis II claims arising out of the same events as 

those alleged in Curtis I,” which claims “would have been heard if plaintiffs had timely 

risen them”); Serlin, 3 F.3d at 223 (“[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and 

available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions”) (internal quotation 

marks omitted)).

Here, both of Plaintiff’s complaints allege that on December 25, 2015, Defendant 

T. Singh threatened to shove his baton in Plaintiff’s anus and taunted Plaintiff with 

homophobic slurs. They both allege that Defendant Singh also chained Plaintiff to a 

bench for twelve hours, thus forcing Plaintiff to sit in his own waste, and laughed about it. 

The complaints further allege that Defendant Wigt “singled out” Plaintiff and retaliated 

against him. Plaintiff accuses these Defendants of cruel and unusual punishment, 

harassment, hate crimes, retaliation, and other related offenses, and seeks monetary 

relief as well as injunctions directing Defendants to stop their abuses. Further, while both 

complaints name the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department in their captions, the 

Sheriff’s Department appears nowhere in the body of either complaint, and neither

complaint attributes any constitutional violations to the Sheriff’s Department. Based on 

the similarity of these facts and claims, the Court finds that Case No. 1:16-cv-00290 is 

duplicative of Case No. 1:16-cv-00126. Plaintiff will therefore be directed to show cause, 

within fourteen days of this order, why Case No. 1:16-cv-00290 should not be dismissed 

as duplicative.1

 

1

The Court notes that Case No. 1:16-cv-00290 mentions in passing that “[D]eputy Ballard continues 

[singling Plaintiff out] where [Defendant Wigt has] stopped.” Deputy Ballard is not named as a Defendant 

in Case No. 1:16-cv-00290 (and is not named at all in Case No. 1:16-cv-00126). It is not clear what, if any, 

constitutional claim Plaintiff intends to state against Deputy Ballard. Furthermore, Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 10(a) requires all Defendants be named in the caption of the complaint. The Court therefore will 

not consider Deputy Ballard to be a party to Case No. 1:16-cv-00290. If Plaintiff intended otherwise, he 

should make this clear in his response to the Order to Show Cause.

Case 1:16-cv-00290-LJO-MJS Document 20 Filed 11/28/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Within fourteen days of this order, Plaintiff must SHOW CAUSE why Case No. 

1:16-cv-00290 should not be dismissed as duplicative of Case No. 1:16-cv00126.

2. If Plaintiff fails to respond, or his response fails to show good cause for Case 

No. 1:16-cv-00290 to remain open, the undersigned will recommend this case 

be dismissed, without prejudice, as duplicative. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:16-cv-00290-LJO-MJS Document 20 Filed 11/28/16 Page 4 of 4