Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01681/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01681-0/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

ENID MARIE FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL 

WOMEN’S FACILITY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01681-AWI-JDP

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF CASE 

1:19-cv-01509-NONE-JLT

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Enid Marie Flores is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action. 

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on November 12, 2019. ECF No. 1. As it 

appears that plaintiff filed a complaint against the same defendants based on the same allegations 

in Flores v. Cal. Corr. Women’s Facility, No. 1:19-cv-01509 at ECF No. 1, the court will order 

plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative.

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 

(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 

Case 1:19-cv-01681-AWI-JDP Document 17 Filed 04/06/20 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

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 October 23, 2019, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California and 

that is proceeding in Flores v. Cal. Corr. Women’s Facility, No. 1:19-cv-01509. Three weeks 

later, plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action. Several pages of the complaints in 

both cases are identical. The allegations are identical. The defendants are identical. The only 

difference in the complaints is that plaintiff includes more exhibits attached to her complaint in 

Flores, No. 1:19-cv-01509, at ECF No. 1.

Thus, it appears that this case is duplicative of Flores v. Cal. Corr. Women’s Facility, No. 

1:19-cv-01509. 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, she may file a notice of dismissal. If plaintiff fails to 

file a response, we will recommend that this case be dismissed.

Case 1:19-cv-01681-AWI-JDP Document 17 Filed 04/06/20 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 204.

Case 1:19-cv-01681-AWI-JDP Document 17 Filed 04/06/20 Page 3 of 3