Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00473/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00473-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD DAVID JONES, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ERIC ARNOLD, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:16-cv-00473-LJO-BAM 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF THIS 

ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Edward David Jones, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

civil action. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on April 1, 2016, is currently before the Court. 

On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a separate civil action. That action has been assigned

lower case number 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM. The Court also has entered orders in that action, 

including an order granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and an order 

dismissing his complaint with leave to amend. 

A review of the instant action reveals that the complaint involves the same allegations 

and parties as case number 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM.1 Both actions name Eric Arnold, 

 

1

The Court notes that the Complaint in this action is entitled “Motion: Supplemental An Briefings Writs 

Petition Writ Mandates Injunction Declaratory Reliefs-Mandamus-Writ (Tortiously) [sic] Cross Complaint (Federal 

Rule Civil Procedure) (Rule 15. Supplements An Pleadings. Doc. 1. If Plaintiff intended this pleading to be filed 

Case 1:16-cv-00473-LJO-BAM Document 2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Schwarzenegger and Susan Hubbard. Both actions allege that Plaintiff’s mother, Geneva Jones, 

died after alleged exposure to Valley Fever while visiting Plaintiff in prison. 

II. Discussion

“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 (9 th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor 

v. Sturgell, 533 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). In assessing whether a second action is duplicative of the 

first, the court examines whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or 

privies to the action, are the same. Adams, 487 F.3d at 689. First, the court must examine 

whether the causes of action in the two suits are identical pursuant to the transaction test, 

developed in the context of claim preclusion. Id. Second, the court determines whether the

defendants are the same or in privity. Id. at 691. 

A plaintiff is required to bring at one time all of the claims against a party or privies 

relating to the same transaction or event. Adams, 487 F.3d at 693. The court has discretion to 

dismiss a duplicative complaint with prejudice to prevent a plaintiff from “fragmenting a single 

cause of action and litigating piecemeal the issues which could have been resolved in one 

action.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 694 (quoting Flynnv. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 418 F.2d

668 (9th Cir. 1969) (per curiam)).

Here, the named defendants and the underlying facts and events are identical to those in 

1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM. The Court therefore finds that this action is duplicative of case 

number 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM. 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as 

duplicative of case number 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

 

with the pleadings in 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM, then he may, only as appropriate and necessary, incorporate this 

pleading with any amended complaint filed in 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM. 

Case 1:16-cv-00473-LJO-BAM Document 2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 3
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

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00473-LJO-BAM Document 2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 3