Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00349/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00349-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

SECRETARY RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00349-NONE-JDP

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF CASE 

1:19-cv-01358-NONE-BAM

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in 

this action. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on March 3, 2020. ECF No. 1. 

The case was transferred to this district the same week, ECF No. 5, and plaintiff was ordered to 

apply to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee, ECF No. 8. Plaintiff moved to proceed 

in forma pauperis on March 30, 2020, ECF No. 12, and the court received his trust fund account 

statement on April 1, 2020. As it appears that plaintiff filed a complaint against many of the 

same defendants based on similar allegations in Smith v. Becerra, No. 1:19-cv-01358 at ECF No. 

1, the court will order plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative

before deciding the pending motion.

Duplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to 

dismissal as either frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See, e.g., Cato v. United 

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 574 

Case 1:20-cv-00349-JLT-HBK Document 16 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 3
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

(10th Cir. 1997); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994–95 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 

F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). “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 v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) 

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

Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). 

“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 Haytian 

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 . . . 

to the action, are the same.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 689. See also Serlin v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 

3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (“[A] suit is 

duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two 

actions.”).

On February 14, 2019, plaintiff filed a complaint that was also transferred to the Eastern 

District of California and which is proceeding in Smith v. Becerra, No. 1:19-cv-01358. That case 

was unassigned from a district judge following the retirement of Chief Judge O’Neill on February 

3, 2020. One month later, plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action, attaching the 

order unassigning the district judge.

1

In both cases plaintiff provides a laundry list of allegations against dozens of defendants, 

including retaliation in the form of physical abuse against him for filing previous lawsuits. See

ECF No. 1. In both cases, plaintiff seeks monetary damages. While the allegations and the list of 

defendants are not identical, they do not appear to significantly differ.

 

1 Plaintiff’s case that was unassigned is still active. To the extent that plaintiff believed he needed 

to file a new complaint in response to the order unassigning the district judge, that was a 

misinterpretation of the order.

Case 1:20-cv-00349-JLT-HBK Document 16 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 3
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

Thus, it appears that this case is duplicative of Smith v. Becerra, No. 1:19-cv-01358. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that within thirty days from the date of service of this order, 

plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative. If plaintiff does 

not wish to pursue this case, he may file a notice of dismissal. If plaintiff fails to file a response, 

we will recommend that this case be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 204.

Case 1:20-cv-00349-JLT-HBK Document 16 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 3