Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00809/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00809-8/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

K. ALLEN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-0809 KJM AC P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, currently incarcerated at California State Prison, Los Angeles 

County (CSP-LAC), who proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

(FAC) filed May 8, 2013.1

 ECF No. 10. 

 Currently pending is defendants’ motion to dismiss premised on plaintiff’s alleged failure 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. This action is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule 302(c), and Local General Order No. 262. For 

the reasons that follow, this court finds that this action duplicates plaintiff’s claims in an earlier-

 

1

 As defendants note, the FAC is plaintiff’s original complaint re-filed after plaintiff signed and 

dated it as directed by the court. See ECF No. 4. Plaintiff’s exhibits attached to his original 

complaint, ECF No. 1, remain part of the record. See ECF No. 8 at 2. 

Case 2:13-cv-00809-KJM-AC Document 41 Filed 03/24/15 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

filed case, Springfield v. Singh, Case No. 2:12-cv-02552 KJM AC P, and recommends that the 

instant action be dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff pursuing his claims in his first-filed 

action. 

 On January 28, 2014, the district judge issued a Related Case Order, relating this case to 

Springfield v. Singh, Case No. 2:12-cv-02552 KJM AC P. See ECF No. 26. On August 14, 

2014, the undersigned denied defendants’ motion to consolidate these cases, without prejudice to 

a renewal of the motion upon resolution of the motions then pending in Singh. ECF No. 31. In 

that order, the undersigned noted the following similarities and distinctions between the cases: 

In Springfield v. Singh, Case No. 2:12-cv-2552 KJM AC P 

(hereafter, Singh action), plaintiff . . . alleg[es] due process 

violations in the gang validation investigative process and/or 

plaintiff’s continued or extended placement in administrative 

segregation. These claims are stated against sixteen defendants at 

three separate facilities . . . . Plaintiff also proceeds on claims of 

deliberate indifference to a serious mental health condition against 

six of these defendants. Among the sixteen defendants in the Singh 

action are defendants Allen, Singh and Arnold who are also the 

defendants against whom plaintiff proceeds in the later-filed 

Springfield v. Allen case, No. 2:13-cv-0809 KJM AC P (hereafter, 

Allen action). 

The allegations of the Singh action encompass a broader period of 

time (from March 21, 2011 to September 4, 2012) than do those of 

the Allen action (from August 4, 2011 to January 25, 2012). 

Compare ECF No. 21 (amended complaint) in the Singh action to 

ECF No. 10 (operative complaint) in the Allen action. As 

defendants observe, the allegations of the second case (Allen) focus 

more narrowly on defendants located at a single facility, CMF, and 

on specific unit and/or institutional classification hearings held on 

August 25, 2011; January 11, 2012; January 18, 2012 and January 

25, 2012. In the Allen action, there is an additional alleged due 

process violation asserted as to two of the hearings, the alleged 

absence of a 72-hour notice prior to the hearings, among otherwise 

similar or identical allegations of violations of due process. 

ECF No. 31 at 2 (fn. omitted). 

 In reviewing the merits of defendants’ motions for summary judgment and for dismissal in 

Singh, based on plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies and alleged failure 

to state a cognizable claim, the undersigned is persuaded that plaintiff is challenging the same 

matters in both actions, as to defendants Allen, Singh and Arnold. Although plaintiff has 

attempted to be more specific in the instant action, his allegations against each defendant herein 

Case 2:13-cv-00809-KJM-AC Document 41 Filed 03/24/15 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

are also reflected in Singh. More importantly, plaintiff’s allegations herein are necessarily 

premised on and framed by the same exhausted administrative appeals analyzed in detail in Singh 

(Appeal Log No. CMF-11-01421). This renders plaintiff’s claims stronger in Singh because the 

exhibits therein demonstrate, inter alia, that plaintiff’s challenged gang validation was rescinded 

based on an administrative finding that plaintiff was denied due process, while this factor is not 

asserted in the instant case. 

 A federal court has the inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its 

docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North 

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In the federal district court system, “the general 

principle is to avoid duplicative litigation.” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United 

States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976) (citations omitted). “As part of its general power to administer 

its docket, a district court may stay or dismiss a suit that is duplicative of another federal court 

suit.” Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2000) (citing Colorado River, 424 

U.S. at 817). “[S]imple dismissal of the second suit is [a] common disposition because plaintiffs 

have no right to maintain two actions on the same subject in the same court, against the same 

defendant at the same time.” Curtis, 226 F.3d at 138-39 (citations omitted). 

 “[I]n 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.” 

Adams v. Calif. Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). 

The undersigned is persuaded that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Singh, Allen and Arnold, 

as set forth in both Singh and Allen, involve identical parties, arose from the “same transactional 

nucleus of facts,” allege “infringement of the same right[s],” and depend upon the “same 

evidence.” Id. (citation and internal quotations marks omitted). In addition, the only relief 

plaintiff seeks in Allen is punitive damages, which is included in plaintiff’s claim for both 

punitive damages and injunctive relief in Singh. 

 The undersigned’s contemporaneous review of the operative complaints, supporting 

exhibits and respective motions to dismiss in both cases demonstrates that all of plaintiff’s claims 

in the instant case are duplicated in Springfield v. Singh, Case No. 2:12-cv-2552 KJM AC P. For 

Case 2:13-cv-00809-KJM-AC Document 41 Filed 03/24/15 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

this reason, the undersigned recommends that the instant action be dismissed without prejudice. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff pursuing his claims herein in his 

first-filed action, Springfield v. Singh, Case No. 2:12-cv-2552 KJM AC P. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b). 

 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 32, and motion to strike, ECF No. 40, be 

denied as moot. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court, which shall be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” No extensions of time will be granted, due to exigencies of time 

within the court. A copy of any objections filed with the court shall also be served on all parties. 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 

to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: March 23, 2015 

Case 2:13-cv-00809-KJM-AC Document 41 Filed 03/24/15 Page 4 of 4