Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00941/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00941-1/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL L. HIGGINS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

 v. )

 )

J. MEDINA, et al., )

 )

 )

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-00941-OWW-NEW(DLB)-PC 

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AS

DUPLICATIVE AND CLOSE ACTION 

 

Plaintiff Carl L. Higgins ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action at this court on June 29, 2007.

This case shall be dismissed as duplicative. Plaintiff's complaint in this action is identical to

the complaint filed by plaintiff on June 28, 2007, in case 1:07-cv-00934-LJO-NEW(DLB)-PC, 

Higgins v. Medina. "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 v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007). "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.'" Id. (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp.,

563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir.1 1977)(en banc)). "[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and

Case 1:07-cv-00941-OWW -GSA Document 9 Filed 10/01/07 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

available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions." Id. at 689

The two complaints filed by plaintiff are duplicative. Plaintiff brings the same causes of

action against the same defendants in the same court, using exactly the same language. Both

complaints consist of the same 90 pages, including a 50-page complaint and 40 pages of exhibits. In

fact, each complaint appears to be an exact copy of the other. 

In light of the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

1. The complaint in this action be dismissed as duplicative of the complaint in case

1:07-cv-00934-LJO-NEW(DLB)-PC, Higgins v. Medina; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to administratively close this action. 

These findings and recommendations are 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 thirty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 28, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00941-OWW -GSA Document 9 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 2