Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00317/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00317-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benny Ray Carter
Plaintiff
State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Defendant

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

BENNY RAY CARTER,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION,

 Defendant.

1:15-cv-00317-LJO-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE AS 

DUPLICATIVE OF CASE 1:15-cv-0313-

LJO-DLB-PC

ORDER FOR CLERK TO 

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE

I. BACKGROUND

Benny Ray Carter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on 

March 2, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) 

II. DUPLICATIVE CASES

“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 

Case 1:15-cv-00317-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 09/15/15 Page 1 of 3
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

previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both 

actions.” Adams, 497 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, 

497 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, 497 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, 154 U.S. 118, 124, 14 S.Ct. 992, 38 L.Ed. 930 (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, 497 F.3d 

at 689 (citing see The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. at 124, 14 S.Ct. 992 (“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 (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 v. Arthur Anderson & 

Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available 

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

Discussion

The court record shows that Plaintiff has two civil rights cases pending before this 

court. The first case was filed on February 27, 2015 and is pending as case 1:15-cv-00313-

LJO-DLB-PC; Carter v. State of California, et al. (Court Record.) The second case is the 

Case 1:15-cv-00317-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 09/15/15 Page 2 of 3
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

present case, 1:15-cv-00317-LJO-GSA-PC, Carter v. State of California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation, filed on March 2, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) The court has reviewed 

the two cases and finds that the complaint for the present case is identical to the complaint in 

case 1:15-cv-00313-LJO-DLB-PC; Carter v. State of California, et al. Plaintiff brings a 

medical claim concerning a change in his pain medication in both complaints. The exhibits to 

the complaints are the same, except that eleven additional exhibits are attached to complaint in 

case 1:15-cv-00313-LJO-DLB-PC; Carter v. State of California, et al. The exhibits in both 

cases are comprised of Plaintiff’s medical records and copies of Plaintiff’s prison appeal

concerning his change in medication. Both cases are civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

' 1983, and the parties, allegations, claims, and requested relief are identical. Thus, the court 

finds the two cases to be duplicative. Based on these facts, the present case shall be dismissed.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This case is DISMISSED as duplicative of case 1:15-cv-00313-LJO-DLB-PC; 

Carter v. State of California, et al.; and

2. The Clerk is directed to administratively CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00317-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 09/15/15 Page 3 of 3