Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03045/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03045-9/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEXTER BROWN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-03045 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court are plaintiff’s fifth and first amended complaints. ECF 

Nos. 41, 44. 

On March 31, 2014, plaintiff filed his fourth amended complaint, which named the State 

of California as the sole defendant. ECF No. 31. The complaint contained two claims, and 

though it did not specify the statutory basis for the claims, the factual allegations implicated Title 

II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Id. In Count I, 

plaintiff alleged that he was being excluded from prison programs and activities because 

defendant refused to make a reasonable accommodation for his inability to communicate his 

request for those services in writing. Id. at 3. Count II alleged that plaintiff was subject to some 

kind of criminal, predatory attack in prison, and that because of his bi-polar disorder, he was 

denied protection he otherwise would have been afforded. Id. at 4. 

Case 2:12-cv-03045-MCE-AC Document 46 Filed 04/13/15 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

On October 20, 2014, the court dismissed plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint with leave 

to amend. ECF No. 39. The scope of plaintiff’s leave to amend was limited. Plaintiff was 

permitted to amend Count I to add sufficient details to allow defendant to identify the series of 

events he was complaining about, such as what accommodations were requested, when and how 

they were denied, and who was involved. Id. at 5-6. He was also permitted to amend Count II to 

identify the “criminal predation complaint” and who was involved in denying the requested 

protection so that defendant could identify the event plaintiff was referring to. Id. at 6. Plaintiff 

was advised that “the fifth amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case 

and must be labeled ‘Fifth Amended Complaint.’” Id. 

On November 3, 2014, plaintiff filed his fifth amended complaint. ECF No. 41. On 

January 4, 2015, without explanation, plaintiff filed another document labeled “First Amended 

Complaint.” ECF No. 44. The “first amended complaint” states claims different than those 

presented in the fourth amended complaint, adds additional defendants, and does not include the 

State of California as a defendant and therefore exceeds the scope of amendment permitted by the 

court. The “first amended complaint” also appears to be an abbreviated version of the proposed 

first amended complaint currently pending in Brown v. Sagireddy, et al., 2:14-cv-00338 JAM AC 

P at ECF No. 39. “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. Cal. 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) (en banc)) (overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. 

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

Because the “first amended complaint” exceeds the scope of amendment permitted by the 

court; is duplicative of the proposed amended complaint currently pending in Brown v. 

Sagireddy, et al., 2:14-cv-00338 JAM AC P; and appears to have been filed in this action by 

mistake, it will be stricken from the record. The fifth amended complaint will be screened in due 

course. 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:12-cv-03045-MCE-AC Document 46 Filed 04/13/15 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court will strike the “first amended 

complaint” (ECF No. 44) from the record. 

DATED: April 10, 2015 

Case 2:12-cv-03045-MCE-AC Document 46 Filed 04/13/15 Page 3 of 3