Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01701-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL SIMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-01701-JLT (PC)

ORDER STRIKING DUPLICATE/REPEAT 

FILING

(Doc. 15)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK'S OFFICE TO 

SEND PLAINTIFF A PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS 28 U.S.C. §2254

Plaintiff, Earl Simpson, is a civil detainee who is currently proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on October 23, 2013. (Doc. 

1.) This action was dismissed without prejudice on April 1, 2014 and judgment was entered that 

same date. (Docs. 11, 12.) Over five months later, on September 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 

document entitled "Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition and Requesting to Vacate and 

[sic] Order of a Judgment" which was construed as a motion for reconsideration and denied on 

October 10, 2015. (Docs. 13, 14.) Now, ten months after the Court denied reconsideration, again

Plaintiff filed the document entitled "Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition and 

Requesting to Vacate and [sic] Order of a Judgment." (Doc. 15.) This is an exact duplicate of the 

document Plaintiff filed on September 24, 2014. (See Docs. 13, 15.)

The law of the case doctrine allows a court to courteously and efficiently say "enough's 

Case 1:13-cv-01701-JLT Document 16 Filed 08/26/15 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

2

enough" when a litigant seeks repeated reconsideration of prior decisions. Gonzales v. Arizona, 

624 F.3d 1162, 1185-87 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations and quotations omitted). The doctrine 

Apromotes the finality and efficiency of the judicial process by protecting against the agitation of 

settled issues" which "are paramount concerns to sound judicial administration, as [a] court 

cannot efficiently perform its duty to provide expeditious justice to all if a question once 

considered and decided by it were to be litigated anew in the same case upon any and every 

subsequent@ request. Id., (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff is barred from pursuing his claims in this action by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 

477 (1994). The basis for this conclusion and resulting orders have been repeatedly addressed in this 

action (see Docs. 10, 11, 14) and the Court declines to expend any more of its limited resources on 

this issue. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff=s "Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition and Requesting to 

Vacate and [sic] Order of a Judgment" filed August 20, 2015 (Doc. 15) be 

STRICKEN from the record since duplicative of his September 24, 2014 filing; 

2. The Clerk's Office is to send Plaintiff a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 USC §2254; and 

3. because this matter is closed and Plaintiff's issues have previously and repeatedly 

been addressed NO FURTHER FILINGS WILL BE ACCEPTED IN THIS 

CASE ASIDE FROM THOSE FOR APPEAL PURPOSES. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01701-JLT Document 16 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 2