Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01933/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01933-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vance Edward Johnson
Plaintiff
C. Nevarez
Defendant
M. Perez
Defendant
M. Wilson
Defendant

Document Text:

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

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. WILSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01933-LJO-BAM-PC

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED AS 

DUPLICATIVE

OBJECTIONS DUE IN 

FOURTEEN DAYS

Plaintiff Vance Johnson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Currently before the Court is 

Plaintiff’s complaint filed on December 30, 2015.

On December 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a civil rights action. That action has been assigned 

case number 1:15-cv-01915-LJO-SAB-PC. An order has been entered in that case, finding that 

the complaint states a claim for relief against Defendant Wilson. Plaintiff has notified the court 

that he intends to proceed against Defendant Wilson and agrees to the dismissal of the remaining 

defendants.

A review of this action reveals that the complaint is identical to case number 1:15-cv01915-LJO-SAB-PC. Both actions name as Defendants M. Wilson, C. Nevarez, and M. Perez. 

Both actions alleged that on August 24, 2015, Defendant Wilson retaliated against Plaintiff for 

Case 1:15-cv-01933-LJO-BAM Document 10 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 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

2

filing an inmate appeal by writing a rules violation report charging Plaintiff with falsification of 

records or documentation. Both actions allege that on August 26, 2015, Defendant Wilson 

further retaliated against Plaintiff by taking all the rest of his appliances. Both actions allege that 

Defendant Nevarez did not allow Plaintiff to present any witnesses at his rule violation hearing.

I. Analysis 

“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.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (quoting 

Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3rd Cir. 1977) (en banc)).

In assessing whether a second action is duplicative of the first, the court examines 

whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are 

the same. Adams, 487 F.3d at 689. First, the court must examine whether the causes of action in 

the two suits are identical pursuant to the transaction test, developed in the context of claim 

preclusion. Id. Second, the court determines whether the defendants are the same or in privity. 

Privity includes an array of relationships which fit under the title of “virtual representation.” 

Kourtis v. Cameron, 419 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir. 2005). “The necessary elements of virtual 

representation are an identity of interests and adequate representation.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 691 

(citing Kourtis, 419 F.3d at 996). “Additional features of a virtual representation relationship 

include a close relationship, substantial participation, and tactically maneuvering.” Adams, 487 

F.3d at 691 (quoting Kourtis, 419 F.3d at 996).

A plaintiff is required to bring at one time all of the claims against a party or privies 

relating to the same transaction or event. Adams, 487 F.3d at 693. The court has discretion to 

dismiss a duplicative complaint with prejudice to prevent a plaintiff from “fragmenting a single 

cause of action and litigating piecemeal the issues which could have been resolved in one 

action.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 694 (quoting Flynn v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 418 F.2d 

Case 1:15-cv-01933-LJO-BAM Document 10 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 of 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

3

668 (9th Cir. 1969) (per curiam)).

II. Conclusion and Recommendation

The named defendants, the causes of action, and allegations of fact in this case are 

identical to those in the earlier case. The Court finds that this action is duplicative of case 

number 1:15-cv-01915-LJO-SAB-PC. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 

this action be dismissed as duplicative.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of Title 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d F.3d 

834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01933-LJO-BAM Document 10 Filed 05/23/16 Page 3 of 3