1

JS-6

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID SABINO QUAIR III, Case Nos. 5:19-01397 PSG (ADS); 5:19- 01651 PSG (ADS); 2:19-10491 PSG (ADS); 12 Plaintiff, 2:20-00473 PSG (ADS); 2:20-00532 PSG (ADS) 13 v. 14 CDCR-HQ, et al., ORDER DISMISSING CASES Defendants. AS DUPLICATIVE 15 16 Before the Court are fivecivil rights cases filed by prose plaintiff, David S. Quair 17 III(“Plaintiff”), an inmate currently residing at California Men’s Colony – East. Plaintiff 18 previously filed nineteen similar civil rights cases in this District, whichwere ordered 19 consolidated on July 11, 2019(collectively referred to as the “Consolidated Cases”). 20 [5:18-02595 PSG (ADS) [Dkt. No. 18](“Order Consolidating Cases”)]. Plaintiff also filed 21 in this District four habeas petitions which were denied for failure to state a cognizable 22 claim forhabeasrelief. A review of PACER reveals Plaintiff has filed in other Districts 23 numerous similar cases, which have beensummarily dismissed. 24 In the Consolidated Cases, Plaintiff was ordered to file one consolidated 1 complaint, and ordered to file nothing more. Instead of filing a consolidated complaint, 2 Plaintifffiled thesefivecases1which are substantially identical and duplicative ofthe 3 ConsolidatedCases. 4 A federal court has the “inherent power to control the disposition of the causes 5 on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for the

6 litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Federal courts also 7 have an interest in avoiding “duplicative litigation”based upon the principles of wise use 8 and conservation of judicial resources. Colo.River Water Conservation Dist. v. United 9 States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)(discussion in the context of duplicative federal and 10 state proceedings). “Plaintiffs generallyhave ‘no right to maintain two separate actions 11 involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the 12 same defendant.’” Adams v. Cal.Dep’t of Health Serv., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 13 2007)(overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008)) 14 (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc)). Therefore, a 15 district court may exercise its discretion to control its docket by dismissing a duplicative, 16 later-filed action. Adams,487 F.3d at 688; seealsoCurtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d

17 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2000)(“[a]s part of its general power to administer its docket, a district 18 court may stay or dismiss a suit that is duplicative of another federal court suit”). In 19 20 1Cases 20-0473 PSG (ADS) and 20-0532 PSG (ADS) were originally filed in the Northern District of California and transferred to this District because all allegations 21 presented are regarding prison conditions at California Men’s Colony, where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated, which is located in the Central District of California. Plaintiff 22 has filed a request to proceed informapauperisin each of the three actions, but the applicationis incomplete for 19-10491PSG (ADS),20-0473 PSG (ADS), and 20-0532 23 PSG (ADS). The Court has not ruled on any of the fiverequestsbut notes the obligation to screen the cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b)(1). 24 1 assessing whether actions are duplicative, the court examines, among other things, 2 whether the causes of action, alleged events, relief sought, as well as the parties or 3 privies to the action are the same. Adams, 487 F.3d at 688-89. 4 The Court also has the inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious 5 disposition of cases by dismissing actions pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure

6 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. SeePagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d639, 7 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court’s dismissal of petitioner’s claim for failure to 8 prosecute and failure to comply with a court order). The Court weighs the following 9 factors when determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a court 10 order: (1) the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation; (2)the Court’s 11 need to manage its docket; (3)the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4)the public 12 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5)the availability of less drastic 13 sanctions. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at642. 14 The Cases are Duplicative 15 The fivepresent casesare duplicative of the nineteen Consolidated Cases. First, 16 of the thirtylisted defendants in thesefivecomplaints,all wereeither listed as a

17 defendant by name orincluded within anorganizational defendantin one of the 18 consolidated actions. For example, defendant Dr. Tran of the California Correctional 19 Health Care Services is listed by name as a defendant onone of the fivepresent cases, 20 19-1651 PSG (ADS),and inthreeof the Consolidated Cases, 19-0022 PSG (ADS); 19- 21 0776PSG (ADS); 19-0783 PSG (ADS). Similarly, defendantCalifornia Correctional 22 Health Care Servicesislisted as a defendant on one of the fivepresent actions, 19-1651 23 PSG (ADS),and in three of the Consolidated Cases, 19-0768PSG (ADS); 19-0776PSG 24 (ADS); 19-0783PSG (ADS). 1 Second, each of the fivepresent casesinclude substantially all ofthe factual 2 allegations and claims asserted across the nineteen Consolidated Cases. Most 3 commonly, Plaintiff alleges due process violations for impeding access to the courts, 4 obstruction of legal mail, and medical negligence and malpractice for the incorrect 5 dosage or denial of medication. Plaintiff alleges each of these claims in the fivepresent

6 cases, and each of these claims is asserted numerous times acrossthe nineteen 7 Consolidated Cases. 8 Third, Plaintiff attaches hundreds of pages of documents tohis complaints, often 9 attaching the same combination of documentsto separate complaints. Considering all 10 of these factors, the Court finds the fivepresent cases are duplicativecases. 11 Failure to Comply with Court Orders 12 Weighing thefactors for failure to comply with a court orderalsosupports 13 summary dismissal of the fivepresent cases. SeePagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d639, 14 640 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff was ordered to file a Consolidated Complaint. 5:18-02595 15 PSG (ADS) [Dkt. No. 18]. Thefiling of thesefiveduplicative cases negatively affects 16 both the expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket

17 efficiently. The public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits is not furthered 18 by allowing fiveadditional duplicative complaints to proceed. There is no risk of 19 prejudice to the parties if theseduplicative complaintsaredismissed, and dismissal 20 without prejudice is the most efficient way to address the problem of a duplicative 21 complaint. Havingweighed these factorsand given the Court’s interest in controlling its 22 docket and avoiding duplicative litigation, the Court finds that dismissal of thesefive 23 cases without prejudice is warranted. 24 /// 1 Case numbers 5:19-01397 PSG (ADS); 5:19-01651 PSG (ADS); 2:19-10491 2 || PSG (ADS); 20:20-0473 PSG (ADS); 2:20-0532 PSG (ADS) are hereby DISMISSED 3 || without prejudice as duplicative. All pending in forma pauperis applications or other 4 ||motions are DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 || Dated: January 29, 2020 _ 4-

LQ A CE

fee 9 THEHGNORABLE PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ 10 United States District Judge

11 |! Presented by: 12 /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth ee 13 || THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH 14 United States Magistrate Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24