Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01875/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01875-0/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 

ROBERT ELLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D. QUALLS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-CV-1875 AC P 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Because this lawsuit may be subject to summary dismissal, plaintiff will not be assessed the 

statutory filing fee at this time. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be 

held in abeyance. 

Duplicative Complaints 

 The current complaint, filed August 8, 2014, alleges that plaintiff was “written up” on July 

10, 2013 by defendant Qualls for participating in a “mass hunger strike” that began on July 8, 

2013. ECF No. 1 at 4. He alleges that he was denied documentation showing that he participated 

in the hunger strike, that he was denied an “investigative employee” to investigate the matter, and 

that defendant Harper “already had his mind made up” that plaintiff was guilty. Plaintiff also 

Case 2:14-cv-01875-AC Document 5 Filed 12/04/14 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

alleges that defendant Qualls falsified the “rule violation report,” and that there were irregularities 

and Due Process violations in how the violation was treated at each level of appeal. ECF No. 1 

at 2. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant L. Lopez (the Appeals Coordinator) employed “stall 

tactics” during the appeal process, in violation of plaintiff’s Due Process rights, that defendant C. 

Hammonds (the Appeals Examiner) “ignored the facts argued by the petitioner” during the 

appeals process, and that defendant Zamora (the Chief of Inmate Appeals) “failed to properly 

investigate” plaintiff’s claims. ECF No. 1 at 2. 

 Previously, on March 31, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint against three of the same 

defendants sued in the instant case, Qualls, Harper and Lopez. See Ellis v. Faulk, 2:14-cv-0802 

AC, ECF No. 1 (E.D. Cal. March 31, 2014) (Claire, M.J.). That matter is still pending before the 

undersigned. The complaint was similarly based upon plaintiff’s having been “written up” on 

July 10, 2013 by defendant Qualls for participating in a “mass hunger strike” (the date of the 

hunger strike is not specified in the earlier complaint). The complaint also alleges that plaintiff’s 

Due Process rights were violated by irregularities in how the violation proceedings were handled. 

Specifically, plaintiff complains that the report was written up by Qualls even though Qualls did 

not witness the incident, and that he was found guilty by Harper based upon Qualls’s report. The 

most recent amendment to this earlier complaint alleges that Qualls submitted a false violation 

report as a retaliation measure. The amended complaint goes on to complain about irregularities 

in the appeal process, similar to allegations in the instant complaint. See Ellis v. Faulk, 2:14-

cv-0802 AC, ECF No. 11 (E.D. Cal. October 6, 2014). 

Discussion 

 It facially appears that the current action is duplicative of the first-filed action. However, 

“[p]laintiffs 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 

Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. 

denied, 552 U.S. 1076 (2007). The determination of whether the actions are duplicative is subject 

to the test set forth in Adams: 

To ascertain whether successive causes of action are the same, we 

Case 2:14-cv-01875-AC Document 5 Filed 12/04/14 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

use the transaction test, developed in the context of claim 

preclusion. “Whether two events are part of the same transaction or 

series depends on whether they are related to the same set of facts 

and whether they could conveniently be tried together.” Western 

Sys., Inc. v. Ulloa, 958 F.2d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing 

Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24(1) (1982)). In applying 

the transaction test, we examine four criteria: 

(1) whether rights or interests established in the prior 

judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of 

the second action; (2) whether substantially the same 

evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether the two 

suits involve infringement of the same right; and (4) 

whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional 

nucleus of facts. Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 

F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1982). “The last of these 

criteria is the most important.” Id. at 1202. 

Adams, 487 F.3d at 689-90. 

 Plaintiff is advised that the Court may dismiss as frivolous a complaint that merely repeats 

pending or previously litigated claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 

1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (“After weighing the equities of the case, 

the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that 

action pending resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with 

it, or to consolidate both actions.”). Plaintiff is further admonished that, if he fails to file a timely 

response to this Order to Show Cause, such failure may be deemed as consent to the dismissal of 

the instant action. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE within thirty days why this case should not be 

dismissed as duplicative of Case No. 2:14-cv-0802 AC; and 

 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is HELD IN ABEYANCE, 

pending resolution of this Order To Show Cause. 

DATED: December 4, 2014 

Case 2:14-cv-01875-AC Document 5 Filed 12/04/14 Page 3 of 3