IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

BRANDON MOYE, SR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT., 

Defendant. 

PAP AK, Magistrate Judge: 

No. 3: l 6-cv-00353-PK 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Pro se Plaintiff Brandon Moye, Sr. brings this action against the State of Oregon 

Employment Depaiiment. I granted Plaintiffs application to proceed informa pauperis. ECF 

No.4. 

After filing the complaint in this action, Plaintiff filed a vhiually identical complaint in 

this comi, opening a new action, lvfoye v. Employment Department, No. 3: l 6-cv-00760-SB 

(l'vfoye ff). The only difference between the two complaints is the date on the signature page. 

Compare Comp!. 5, ECF No. 2 with "11Joye II, Comp!. 5, ECF No. 1. 

Although Plaintiff filed the complaint in lvfoye II after filing the complaint in this action, 

in1vfoye II, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation. Judge 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION - PAGE 1 

Case 3:16-cv-00353-PK Document 6 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 3
Beckerman recommends dismissing }vJoye II without prejudice for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. };Joye II, F&R, ECF No. 5. The Article III judge assigned to }vJoye II has not yet 

ruled on the Findings and Recommendation. 

I recommend dismissing this action with prejudice as duplicative of 1Vfoye II. 

DISCUSSION 

Here, the claims, relief sought, and parties are the same in both actions. Under these 

circumstances, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. See Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health Servs., 

487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir.2007) (when duplicative actions are filed, court has discretion to 

dismiss, stay, enjoin one action, or consolidate), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. 

Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). 

Although Plaintiff filed 2vJoye II after filing this action, }vJoye II has pending Findings and 

Recommendation, while no activity has occurred in this action since this court granted Plaintiffs 

application for in Jonna pauper is status. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the dismissal of this 

action because 2vfoye II remains pending. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons provided above, this action should be dismissed with prejudice as 

redundant of };Joye v. Employment Department, No. 3: 16-cv-00760-SB. A judgment should be 

prepared accordingly. 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

The Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if 

any, are due fourteen ( 14) days from service of the Findings and Recommendation. If no 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION - PAGE 2 

Case 3:16-cv-00353-PK Document 6 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 3
objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that 

date. 

If objections are filed, then a response is due fourteen (14) days after being served with a 

copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings 

and Recommendation will go under advisement. 

NOTICE 

A pa1iy's failure to timely file objections to any of these findings will be considered a 

waiver of that party's right to de novo consideration of the factual issues addressed herein and 

will constitute a waiver of the pmiy's right to review of the findings of fact in any order or 

judgment entered by a district judge. These Findings and Recommendation are not immediately 

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Comi of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(l) 

of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until ent1y of judgment. 

-t,0 

Dated this _b__ day of August, 016. 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION ~ PAGE 3 

Case 3:16-cv-00353-PK Document 6 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 3