Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01283/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01283-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cliff Allenby
Defendant
Gary Powers
Defendant
Brandon Price
Defendant
Andrew Arlington Ring
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

ANDREW ARLINGTON RING,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

KARIM RASHEED, et al.,

Defendants.

1:20-cv-00069-GSA-PC 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO MOVE

THE COMPLAINT FROM THIS CASE 

INTO CASE 1:18-cv-01283-NONE-JLT AS 

THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY 

CLOSING THIS CASE 

I. BACKGROUND

Andrew Arlington Ring (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint commencing 

this action was filed on June 13, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) 

The court finds that the Complaint used to open this case was intended by Plaintiff as the 

Second Amended Complaint in case 1:18-cv-01283-NONE-JLT. Therefore, the court shall 

direct the Clerk to move the Complaint from this case into case 1:18-cv-01283-NONE-JLT as 

the Second Amended Complaint and administratively close this case.

II. PLAINTIFF’S TWO CASES

A. Case 1:18-cv-01283-NONE-JLT; Ring v. Allenby, et al.

On September 19, 2018, the court received a § 1983 civil rights Complaint from Andrew 

Arlington Ring, #CO-000566-0, and opened case 18-cv-01283; Ring v. Allenby; against 

Case 1:18-cv-01283-DAD-JLT Document 21 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 5
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

defendants Cliff Allenby, Brandon Price (Executive Director at California State Hospital (CSH) 

in Coalinga), Dr. Gary Powers (General Practitioner at CSH), John Doe (Social Worker at CSH), 

Jane Doe (Litigation Coordinator at CSH), and Dr. Kareen Rasheed (Eye Surgeon), for providing 

inadequate medical care for Plaintiff’s eye condition at Coalinga State Hospital beginning in “late 

2014 or early 2015.” (Complaint at 4.) Plaintiff claimed that as a result of his inadequate medical 

care he ultimately lost his vision altogether in September 2018. (Complaint at 8.)

 On March 26, 2019, the court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim with 

leave to file a First Amended Complaint. On May 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended 

Complaint. On November 12, 2019, the court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave 

to file a Second Amended Complaint within twenty-one days. Plaintiff did not file a timely 

Second Amended Complaint. On January 22, 2020, the court issued an order for Plaintiff to 

show cause why the case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the court’s order

to file a Second Amended Complaint. The court’s order to Plaintiff was returned in the mail as 

undeliverable. 

On February 17, 2020, the court issued findings and recommendations, recommending 

that this case be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders. On March 27, 

2020, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, declaring under penalty of 

perjury that he timely filed the Second Amended Complaint on January 7, 2020.

B. Case 1:20-cv-00069-GSA-PC; Ring v. Rasheed, et al. (This Case)

On January 10, 2020, the court received a § 1983 civil rights complaint titled 19-cv00878-EPG; Ring v. Rasheed.

1

 The signature on the Complaint by Plaintiff Andrew Arlington 

Ring, #CO-000566-0, was dated January 7, 2020. The Clerk opened a new case, 1:20-cv-00069-

GSA-PC; Ring v. Rasheed; against defendants Dr. Karim Rasheed (eye surgeon), Dr. A. 

Hatwalker (medical doctor), Dr. Bradley Powers (medical doctor), and Dr. Newbarld (medical 

doctor) for providing inadequate medical care for Plaintiff’s eye condition at Coalinga State 

Hospital beginning on June 24, 2014, resulting in Plaintiff’s blindness. (ECF No. 1 at 3.)

 

1 Case number 19-cv-00878 is a habeas case filed by Plaintiff Andrew Arlington Ring 

on June 27, 2019, which was closed on March 13, 2020. 

Case 1:18-cv-01283-DAD-JLT Document 21 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 5
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

III. SAME CASE OPENED TWICE

“District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and ‘[i]n the exercise of 

that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.’” 

Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting

Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per 

curiam)). “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, 

487 F.3d at 688 (citing see Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138–39 (2d Cir. 2000); Walton 

v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70–71 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc), cited with approval in Russ v. 

Standard Ins. Co., 120 F.3d 988, 990 (9th Cir. 1997)). 

“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, 563 F.2d at 70; see also Curtis, 226 F.3d at 138–39; Serlin v. Arthur 

Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223–24 (7th Cir. 1993)). 

“To determine whether a suit is duplicative, we borrow from the test for claim 

preclusion.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. “[T]he true test of the sufficiency of a plea of ‘other suit 

pending’ in another forum [i]s the legal efficacy of the first suit, when finally disposed of, as ‘the 

thing adjudged,’ regarding the matters at issue in the second suit.” Id. (quoting The Haytian 

Republic. United States v. The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 124 (1894)). “Thus, in assessing 

whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine 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 (citing see The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. at 124 (“There must be the same parties, or, at 

least, such as represent the same interests; there must be the same rights asserted and the same 

relief prayed for; the relief must be founded upon the same facts, and the . . . essential basis, of 

the relief sought must be the same.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Curtis, 226 F.3d at 140 

Case 1:18-cv-01283-DAD-JLT Document 21 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 5
4

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

(holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing “Curtis II claims arising out 

of the same events as those alleged in Curtis I,” which claims “would have been heard if plaintiffs 

had timely raised them”); Serlin, 3 F.3d at 223 (“[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and 

available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)).

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has two civil rights cases pending before this Court. The first case was filed on 

September 19, 2018, as case 1:18-cv-01283-JLT (Ring v. Allenby, et al.) (Court Record.) The 

second case is the present case, 1:20-cv-00069-GSA (Ring v. Rasheed, et al.,) (“20-69”) filed on 

January 10, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) 

The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s two cases and finds that the claims, parties, and 

available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions. Both cases are civil rights 

actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Plaintiff, Andrew Arlington Ring, is the same in both 

cases and Plaintiff’s claims in both cases arose out of the same events -- the medical care received 

by Plaintiff for his eye condition during 2014-2018 at Coalinga State Hospital, which Plaintiff 

claims resulted in his blindness. The defendants in the two cases are Plaintiff’s eye surgeon, Dr. 

Karim Rasheed, other medical providers, and officials employed at CSH during the time Plaintiff 

was treated for his eye condition. The complaints are not identical, given that the court finds the 

original complaint in 1:20-cv-00069-GSA to be the second amended complaint for case 1:18-cv01283-JLT. Plaintiff has declared that he submitted the second amended complaint for case 

1:18-cv-01283-JLT on June 7, 2019, whereas the complaint opened as case 1:20-cv-00069-GSA 

was signed by Plaintiff on the same date, June 7, 2019. 

Based on these facts, the court finds that the original Complaint for this case, 1:20-cv00069-GSA, was meant by Plaintiff to be filed, and should have been filed, as the Second 

Amended Complaint in case 1:18-cv-01283-NONE-JLT. Therefore, the court shall direct the 

Clerk to move the Complaint from this case, 1:20-cv-00069-GSA, into case 1:18-cv-01283-

NONE-JLT as the Second Amended Complaint and administratively close this case.

///

Case 1:18-cv-01283-DAD-JLT Document 21 Filed 04/20/20 Page 4 of 5
5

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

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court finds that the original Complaint filed in this case, 1:20-cv-00069-GSA, 

was meant by Plaintiff to be filed, and should have been filed as the Second 

Amended Complaint in case 1:18-cv-01283-NONE-JLT;

2. The Clerk is directed to:

(1) DOCKET this order in both cases: 1:20-cv-00069-GSA and case 1:18-cv01283-NONE-JLT; 

(2) MOVE the original Complaint from case 1:20-cv-00069-GSA into case 

1:18-cv-01283-NONE-JLT as the Second Amended Complaint; and

(3) Administratively CLOSE this case 1:20-cv-00069-GSA.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01283-DAD-JLT Document 21 Filed 04/20/20 Page 5 of 5