Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00484/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00484-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO: 1:09-cv-00484-GBC (PC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON

RELATED CASES 

(Doc. 19)

Barry Louis Lamon (“Plaintiff’) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on March 16, 2009. 

(Doc. 1). On April 12, 2011, the magistrate judge issued an order to show cause in a different action

filed by Plaintiff, Lamon v. Adams, et al., 1:07-cv-01390-LJO-GBC, regarding whether the action

should be dismissed as duplicative. Lamon v. Adams, et al., 1:07-cv-01390-LJO-GBC (Doc. 74). 

On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court for an evidentiary hearing to aid

Plaintiff in determining which claims among his multiple pending actions are duplicative. (Doc. 19).

Plaintiff seeks an evidentiary hearing to sort out the potentially duplicative claims in his civil

actions and he cites to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (the All Writs Act) and Local Rule 123(a) as authority for

his motion. The All Writs Act authorizes the issuance of extraordinary writs in aid of the issuing

court’s jurisdiction. Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534, 119 S.Ct. 1538 (1999) (quotations

omitted). Plaintiff’s reliance on the All Writs Act in support of his request for an evidentiary hearing

is misplaced and his citation to the Act is disregarded. The matter of res judicata was addressed in

a different action and is not currently an issue in this action since the Court has yet to screen the

1

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 21 Filed 10/13/11 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

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Additionally, it is the duty of the Plaintiff to keep records

regarding his multiple pending actions and to ensure against filing duplicative claims and there is

no provision that entitles Plaintiff to a general evidentiary hearing to address the issue of duplicative

claims in his pending actions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 13, 2011 

0jh02o UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 21 Filed 10/13/11 Page 2 of 2