Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01148/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01148-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON JAMES PIERCE,

Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-1148 MCE DAD P

vs.

DOCTOR BARON, et al.,

 /

AARON JAMES PIERCE,

Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-3392 MCE DAD P

vs.

G. TURNER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with the

above-captions civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The actions have been referred

to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

On June 21, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss Case No. 2:11-cv-3392 as

barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (ECF No. 60.) On July 1, 2013, plaintiff filed an

opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 61) and on July 8, 2013, defendants filed a reply

1

Case 2:08-cv-01148-MCE-DB Document 186 Filed 09/06/13 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

(ECF No. 62). On July 11, 2013, plaintiff filed a declaration in opposition to the motion to

dismiss. (ECF No. 63.) On July 16, 2013, defendants filed a motion to strike that document as

an unauthorized surreply. (ECF No. 64.) On July 22, 2013, plaintiff filed a further response to

the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 65) and on July 26, 2013, plaintiff filed an opposition to

defendants’ July 16, 2013 motion to strike plaintiff’s declaration (ECF No. 67). On July 30,

2013, defendants filed another motion to strike (ECF No. 68) and on August 23, 2013, plaintiff

filed a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to the latter motion to strike (ECF

No. 70).

Review of all of the foregoing documents reveals that plaintiff’s opposition to

defendants’ motion to dismiss appears to be grounded in his view that he timely filed Case No. 2:

08-cv-1148 MCE DAD P and that the claims raised in his amended complaint in Case No. 11-cv3392 MCE DAD P are directly related to the claims raised in Case No. 2:08-cv-1148 MCE DAD

P. By order filed January 24, 2013, pursuant to Local Rule 123(a), these two actions were found

to be related and the later filed action reassigned accordingly following the filing of a notice of

related cases by defendants in both actions. In the notice of related cases filed January 7, 2013 in

Case No. 2:08-cv-1148 MCE DAD P, counsel for defendants requested that Case No. 2:11-cv3392 MCE DAD P “be merged into” that action because that action “is the earlier filed lawsuit”

and because Case No. 2:08-cv-1148 MCE DAD P “fully encompasses the issues presented” in

this action. Notice of Related Cases, filed January 7, 2013 (ECF No. 182) at 2. 

The positions of each of the parties and this court’s review of the amended

complaint filed in Case No. 11-cv-3392 MCE DAD P on June 27, 2012 (ECF No. 22) and the

fifth amended complaint filed in Case No. 2:08-cv-1148 MCE DAD P on December 27, 2012

(ECF No. 181) confirm that the claims raised in both actions should be litigated in the same

action. The fifth amended complaint filed by plaintiff in Case No. 2:08-cv-1148 MCE DAD P

raises essentially the same claims as those raised in plaintiff’s amended complaint filed in Case

No. 11-cv-3392. In addition, plaintiff has named six of the same defendants in each action: Dr.

2

Case 2:08-cv-01148-MCE-DB Document 186 Filed 09/06/13 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

Baron, Sergeant Turner, Lieutenant Gower, Officer Braida, Officer Young, and Officer Hawks. 

In Case No. 2:11-cv-3392 MCE DAD P plaintiff has also named Dr. Goller and Correctional

Officer C. Nelson as defendants; in Case No. 2:08-cv-1148 MCE DAD P plaintiff has named Dr.

Luca and Officer Koenig as additional defendants. The court in Case No. 11-cv-3392 MCE

DAD P has found that the amended complaint states cognizable claims for relief only against

defendants Baron, Turner, and Gower. Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint in Case No. 08-cv1148 MCE DAD P is pending screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Good cause appearing, the court will dismiss Case No. 2:11-cv-3392 MCE DAD

P without prejudice as duplicative of the earlier filed action. The court will, by separate order,

screen plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint and make such further orders for proceedings in Case

No. 2:08-cv-1148 MCE DAD P as may be appropriate. All pending motions in Case No. 2:11- 1

cv-3392 MCE DAD P will be denied. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prevent

defendants from asserting all available defenses to any cognizable claims raised in Case No.

2:08-cv-1148 MCE DAD P. In addition, the court will direct the Clerk of the Court to enter the

appearance of defendants Turner, Gower, and Baron through their counsel in Case No. 11-cv3392 MCE DAD P on the record in Case No. 08-1148 MCE DAD P. Defendants Turner,

Gower, and Baron will not be required to respond in Case No. 08-1148 MCE DAD P until

further order of court.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Case No. 11-cv-3392 MCE DAD P is dismissed without prejudice.

/////

/////

 Should plaintiff seek to proceed on claims against Dr. Goller or Correctional Officer 1

Nelson, he may, within no more than twenty days, file in Case No. 2:08-cv-1148 MCE DAD P a

motion for leave to file a sixth amended complaint accompanied by a proposed sixth amended

complaint that names all of the defendants and raises all of the claims on which he intends to

attempt to proceed in that action.

3

Case 2:08-cv-01148-MCE-DB Document 186 Filed 09/06/13 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

2. All pending motions in Case No. 11-cv-3392 MCE DAD P are denied. 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss in Case No. 11-cv-3392 MCE DAD P is denied without

prejudice.

3. Henceforth, plaintiff shall proceed solely in Case No. 08-cv-1148 MCE DAD

P on the claims raised in the above-captioned actions.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall enter the appearance of defendants Turner, Gower,

and Baron through their counsel in Case No. 11-cv-3392 MCE DAD P on the record in Case No.

08-cv-1148 MCE DAD P. Defendants Turner, Gower, and Baron are not required to respond in

Case No. 08-1148 MCE DAD P until further order of court.

DATED: September 5, 2013.

DAD:12

pier11cv3392.mos

4

Case 2:08-cv-01148-MCE-DB Document 186 Filed 09/06/13 Page 4 of 4