Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01307/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01307-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Brenton Lipscomb initiated four actions—by filing four complaints and associated applications 

to proceed in forma pauperis—on October 25, 2024. (Docs. 1, 2.) Upon the filing of the documents, 

the Court opened Case Numbers: 1:24-cv-01305-JLT-CDB (“Action 1305”), 1:24-cv-01306-JLTCDB (“Action 1306”), 1:24-cv-01307-JLT-CDB (“Action 1307”), and 1:24-cv-01308-JLT-CDB 

(“Action 1308”). The assigned magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why (1) all four 

actions should not be consolidated or, in the alternative, (2) why Actions 1305, 1306, and 1307 should 

not be dismissed, with Action 1308 remaining as the operative case. (Doc. 3.) In response, Plaintiff

acknowledged the actions are, at a minimum, related and reviewed the causes of action raised. He 

requested the four matters be consolidated but did not otherwise address the duplicative nature 

between this matter and Action 1308. (See generally Doc. 5.) 

The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff’s four complaints “concern substantially the same 

facts arising from the same incidents concerning the same parties alleging the same causes of action.” 

BRENTON LIPSCOMB,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JAMASON EDWARDS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-01307 JLT CDB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THIS 

ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE, AND DIRECTING 

THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE

(Doc. 8)

Case 1:24-cv-01307-JLT-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 2
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

(Doc. 8 at 5; see also 3-5.) In addition, the magistrate judge determined that “Action 1308 includes all 

the named parties in the other three actions.” (Id. at 3.) Further, the magistrate judge found that in 

response to the OSC, Plaintiff did not identify any reason why this action should be consolidated 

rather than dismissed. (Id. at 5.) Because the matters are duplicative, the magistrate judge 

recommended “dismissal, rather than consolidation, as the appropriate course of action.” (Id.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 

objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 8 at 6.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘rights to challenge the magistrate 

judge’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th 

Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 26, 2024 (Doc. 8) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. This action is DISMISSED as duplicative of Case Number 1:24-cv-01308-JLT-CDB.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate pending motions and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-01307-JLT-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 2