1N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JEFFREY L. BELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES VETERANS 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

MOSJVIAN, J., 

Case No. 3: 15-cv-02235-SB 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Jeffrey Bell ("Plaintiff') currently has nearly identical prose complaints pending against the 

United States Veterans Administration ("Defendant" or "VA") in the United States District Court 

for the District of Oregon. Compare Compl. at 1-4, Bell v. United States, No. 3: 15-cv-02176-SB (D. 

Or. Nov. 19, 2015) ("the first-filed action"), with Comp!. at 1-5, Bell v. United States, No. 3:15-cv02235-SB (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2015) ("the second-filed action"). Both of Plaintiffs actions allege 

Page 1 - ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Case 3:15-cv-02235-SB Document 6 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 3
negligence on the part of a VA neurologist who treated Plaintiff on October 10, 2013, and the firstfiled action is brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-2680. 

"Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same 

subject matter at the same time in the same co mi and against the same defendants." Sturdza v. United 

Arab Emirates, No. 09-0699, 2009 WL 1033269, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 16, 2009) (citation and 

quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, "a plaintiff brings duplicative claims against the same 

defendant, rather than allowing both cases to proceed or consolidating the two cases, '[t]he better 

course is to dismiss the claims' in the new case as duplicative of the already-pending claims." BoweConnon>. 1\1cDonald, No. 15-cv-0269, 2015 WL 807537, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 25, 2015) (citation and 

ellipses omitted); Phelps v. Stomber, 883 F. Supp. 2d 188, 233 (D.D.C. 2012) ("[P]laintiffs may not 

file duplicative complaints in order to expand their legal rights." (quoting Curtis v. Citibank, NA., 

226 F.3d 133, 140 (2d Cir. 2000))). The "bar against duplicative pleadings applies to all plaintiffs, 

whether they are represented by counsel or proceeding prose." Bowe-Connor, 2015 WL 807537, 

at* 1 (dismissing duplicative prose action based on considerations of"wise judicial administration," 

and noting the district court's "inherent power[] to dismiss a suit that is duplicative of another suit 

in federal comi"); Clayton v. Dist. of Columbia, 36 F. Supp. 3d 91, 94 n.1 (D.D.C. 2014) ("Sua 

sponte dismissal of an action duplicative of a parallel action already pending in another federal court 

is allowable as an exercise of 'wise judicial administration."') (citation and ellipses omitted). 

The complaint in the second-filed action is duplicative of the complaint in the first-filed 

action. The second-filed action is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice. See Brown v. City & 

Cnty. ofS.F. Dist. Att'y, 31 F. App'x 412 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that the district court did not abuse 

its discretion in dismissing, as duplicative, complaint that named the same party and raised the same 

Page 2 - ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Case 3:15-cv-02235-SB Document 6 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 3
issues as a previously-filed federal action); Knight v. United States, No. 3: 13-cv-01160-BR, 2013 

WL 4828739, at *3 n.2 (D. Or. Sept. 6, 2013) (dismissingpro se plaintiffs claim because, among 

other reasons, plaintiff filed the same claim in a state action that was removed to and pending in 

federal court, noting that "Plaintiff has no right to have two actions pending based on the identical 

facts"); Lewis v. Sec'y of Pub. Safety & Corr., 508 F. App'x 341, 344 (5th Cir. 2013) ("Lewis's 

duplicative claim should be dismissed without prejudice to Lewis's prosecution of his claims in the 

other currently pending case."). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this 7' day of December, 2015. 

MICHAEL 

/V\&tJ~ w. MOSM 

United States District Judge 

Page 3 - ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Case 3:15-cv-02235-SB Document 6 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 3