Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01506/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01506-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

LANCE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. NOCHA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01506-CDB (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS 

DUPLICATIVE OF CASE NUMBER 1:22-

CV-00095-KES-SKO (PC)

(Doc. 1)

21-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Lance Williams is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint initiating this action and a Motion to Proceed in 

Forma Pauperis on December 3, 2024. (Docs. 1, 2).

Previously, on December 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint in Williams v. 

Rocha, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00095-KES-SKO (PC) (“Williams I”) (Doc. 1).1It appears that 

Plaintiff’s complaint in the instant action advances nearly identical allegations as advanced in the 

Williams I action noted above regarding correctional officers’ failure to protect, use of excessive 

force upon Plaintiff, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and retaliation against 

Plaintiff in violation of his civil rights from June 27, 2021, to August 7, 2021. (Doc. 1). On 

November 6, 2024, the Court dismissed Williams I without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s motion 

to dismiss filed on November 4, 2024, that was construed to be an unopposed motion for 

voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Williams 

I, Doc. 59 at 3).

1 The Court may take judicial notice of court records. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 

(9th Cir. 1980).

Case 1:24-cv-01506-CDB Document 7 Filed 12/27/24 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

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Because Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, prior 

to issuance of summonses, the Court will consider and resolve issues such as jurisdiction and 

whether a complaint states a claim sua sponte. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 

F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 2011) (subject matter jurisdiction); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-362 

(9th Cir. 1981) (failure to state a claim). When reviewing a complaint sua sponte, the Court must 

dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the litigant has raised claims that are legally “frivolous 

or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary 

relief from a defendant(s) who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

II. DISCUSSION

“A complaint ‘that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims’” is subject to 

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)). “[A] duplicative action arising 

from the same series of events and alleging many of the same facts as an earlier suit” may be 

dismissed as frivolous or malicious under section 1915(e). See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. 

“Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of 

proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the ‘comprehensive disposition of litigation.’” 

Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 692 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), 

overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). Thus, “[p]laintiffs 

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, 487 F.3d at 688 (quoting 

Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977)), overruled on other grounds by Sturgell, 

553 U.S. at 904). 

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

preclusion.” Adams, 487 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. (second alteration in 

original) (quoting The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 124 (1894)). “Thus, in assessing whether 

Case 1:24-cv-01506-CDB Document 7 Filed 12/27/24 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

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

sought, as well as the parties . . . to the action, are the same.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 689; see Serlin 

v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, 

parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.”) (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted).

“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, 

487 F.3d at 688.

In the instant complaint, Plaintiff raises claims against Defendants correctional officers A. 

Nocha and H. Florez and Lieutenant M. Magallanes, all of whom are employed at Corcoran State 

Prison. (Doc. 1 at 1–2). Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages of $100,000 from 

each named Defendant. (Id. at 10). Plaintiff alleges Defendants Nocha and Florez failed to 

protect him from being repeatedly harmed by his cellmate on June 27, 2021, and issued to 

Plaintiff a “115 rules violation” in retaliation. (Id. at 3, 5, 6). Plaintiff alleges that on July 18, 

2021, he was put in imminent danger of serious physical injury from an alleged assault and 

battery perpetrated by Defendant Florez and threats from Florez and Defendant Magallanes. 

(Id.). Plaintiff alleges that on July 23, 2021, Florez continued to make threats to Plaintiff’s safety. 

(Id. at 6, 7, 8). Plaintiff alleges that on August 7, 2021, Florez retaliated against Plaintiff by 

issuing a 115 rules violation and threatened him once again. (Id. at 9).

In his earlier filed complaint before the Honorable U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto 

(filed December 16, 2021), Plaintiff raised nearly identical claims against the same named 

Defendants and sought compensatory and punitive damages of $1,000,000 from each named 

Defendant. (Williams I, Doc. 1 at 10).

Since Plaintiff’s claims appear to be identical to his claims in Williams I, the Court will 

order Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative of Case No. 

1:22-cv-00095-KES-SKO (PC).

///

Case 1:24-cv-01506-CDB Document 7 Filed 12/27/24 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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within 21 days from the date of this order, 

Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative of Case 

No. 1:22-cv-00095-KES-SKO (PC).

Any failure by Plaintiff to comply with this Order will result in the imposition of 

sanctions, including a recommendation to dismiss of the entire action without prejudice. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (stating that dismissal is warranted “[i]f the plaintiff fails to ... comply

with ... a court order”); see Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 

(9th Cir. 2005);

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 27, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01506-CDB Document 7 Filed 12/27/24 Page 4 of 4