Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00518/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00518-0/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

PABLO MENDOZA CHAVEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

KINGS COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00518-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS 

DUPLICATIVE OF CASE NUMBERS 1:20-

CV-00471-SKO AND 1:20-CV-00369-EPG

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Pablo Chavez is a pretrial detainee proceeding without counsel in this civil 

rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that he is receiving inadequate 

medical care for his back injury. See ECF No. 1. 

In two recently filed actions in this district—case numbers 1:20-CV-00471-SKO and 

1:20-CV-00369-EPG—plaintiff also alleges similar constitutional violations related to his back 

injury and pain. But a plaintiff has “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.” 

Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977). To see whether an action is 

duplicative, we “examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties 

or privies to the action, are the same.” Adams v. California Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 

684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007).

This action appears duplicative: the basic subject matter, defendants, causes of action, 

and relief sought appear either identical or contain substantial overlap. We will give plaintiff 

thirty days to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as duplicative.

Case 1:20-cv-00518-JDP Document 4 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 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

2

The three actions may have slightly different named defendants or points of emphasis. 

The court notes, however, that plaintiff may wish to simply amend his complaint in the earliest 

of the three cases, 1:20-CV-00369-EPG—adding defendants and related claims—and 

voluntarily dismiss the other two cases. Both the court and the plaintiff will likely benefit from 

having all of the claims considered in one document and by one judge. Plaintiff may also 

benefit from limiting his own obligation to pay multiple filing fees for multiple lawsuits. 

(Here, the court will hold off on deciding plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis—the 

granting of which would obligate him to pay the fee—until plaintiff responds to this order.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 205.

Case 1:20-cv-00518-JDP Document 4 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 2