Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01246/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01246-1/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

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

PATRICK F. DUARTE,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

ENEMOH, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-01246-LJO-GSA-PC

 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS CASE AS 

DUPLICATIVE

(ECF No. 5.)

ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE AS 

DUPLICATIVE OF CASE 1:15-cv-1213-

AWI-DLB-PC

ORDER FOR CLERK TO 

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE

I. BACKGROUND

Patrick F. Duarte (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on 

August 12, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) 

On September 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this case as 

duplicative of case 1:15-cv-01213-AWI-DLB-PC. (ECF No. 5.)

Case 1:15-cv-01246-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 4
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

II. DUPLICATIVE CASES

“District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and ‘[i]n the exercise of 

that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.’” 

Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting

Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.1986) (per 

curiam)). “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.” Adams, 497 F.3d at 688 (citing see Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138–39 

(2d Cir. 2000); Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70–71 (3d Cir.1977) (en banc), cited with 

approval in Russ v. Standard Ins. Co., 120 F.3d 988, 990 (9th Cir.1997)). 

“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, 

497 F.3d at 688 (quoting Walton, 563 F.2d at 70; see also Curtis, 226 F.3d at 138–39; Serlin v. 

Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223–24 (7th Cir.1993)). 

“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, 14 S.Ct. 992, 38 L.Ed. 930 (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 or privies to the action, are the same.” Adams, 497 F.3d 

at 689 (citing see The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. at 124, 14 S.Ct. 992 (“There must be the 

same parties, or, at least, such as represent the same interests; there must be the same rights 

asserted and the same relief prayed for; the relief must be founded upon the same facts, and the 

... essential basis, of the relief sought must be the same.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); 

Curtis, 226 F.3d at 140 (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing 

“Curtis II claims arising out of the same events as those alleged in Curtis I,” which claims 

Case 1:15-cv-01246-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 4
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

“would have been heard if plaintiffs had timely raised them”); Serlin v. Arthur Anderson & 

Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available 

relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Discussion

Plaintiff requests dismissal of this case as duplicative of case 1:15-cv-01213-AWIDLB-PC; Duarte v. Enemoh, et al. Plaintiff explains as follows:

“I mailed a complaint 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on 8/2/2015, it was filed on 

8/5/2015, case number 1:15-cv-01213-DLB (PC). I had not sent the 

second copy of the complaint with the original. On 8/4/2015 I sent the 

second copy of the complaint and a (sic) inmate trust statement. The 

second copy of the original was given a new case # 1:15-cv-01246-GSA 

and was filed on 8/12/2015. (Please see document number 3 enclosed). 

Would you please dismiss the second case 1:15-cv-01246-GSA. The 

second copy was only intended to be added to the first case.”

(ECF No. 5.) 

The court record shows that Plaintiff has two civil rights cases pending before this 

court. The first case was filed on August 5, 2015 and is pending as case 1:15-cv-01213-AWIDLB-PC; Duarte v. Enemoh, et al. (Court Record.) The second case is the present case, 1:15-

cv-01246-LJO-GSA-PC, Duarte v. Enemoh, et al., filed on August 12, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) 

The court has reviewed the two cases and finds that the complaint for the present case is 

identical to the complaint in case 1:15-cv-01213-AWI-DLB-PC; Duarte v. Enemoh, et al. 

Plaintiff brings a medical claim concerning injury to his shoulders in both complaints. The 

exhibits to the two complaints are not arranged in the same order; however, each complaint 

contains thirty-four pages of exhibits comprised of Plaintiff’s medical records concerning 

shoulder pain and copies of Plaintiff’s prison appeal concerning shoulder injuries. Both cases

are civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, and the parties, allegations, claims, and 

requested relief are identical. Thus, the two cases appear to be duplicative. Based on these 

facts, the court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss this case. 

///

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01246-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 09/16/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss this case, filed on September 10, 2015, is 

GRANTED;

2. This case is DISMISSED as duplicative of case 1:15-cv-01213-AWI-DLB-PC; 

Duarte v. Enemoh, et al.; and

3. The Clerk is directed to administratively CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01246-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 09/16/15 Page 4 of 4