1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 AUSTIN DE TAGLE, Case No. 24-cv-03480-NC Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 6 WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. DISMISSED WITHOUT 7 PREJUDICE AS DUPLICATIVE

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DISTRICT

8 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Re: ECF 4 9 Defendant. 10 Self-represented Plaintiff Austin de Tagle filed a complaint on June 10, 2024. ECF 11 1. The complaint is the same as one already filed with the Court at docket 5:24-cv-03353- 3 12 || SVK. “Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the

13 || same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.”

14 || Mendoza v. Amalgamated Transit Union Int’l, 30 F.4th 879, 886 (9th Cir.) (quotation

15 || marks omitted). Having multiple identical cases is not efficient for the parties or the Court

4 16 || and risks creating inconsistencies. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS de Tagle to respond

5 17 || in writing by Friday, July 12, 2024, explaining why this case should not be dismissed

18 ||} without prejudice. The Court may dismiss this case if de Tagle does not respond. 19 Though the complaints are identical, the in forma pauperis (fee waiver) applications 20 || in each docket are different. If de Tagle’s intent was to file an updated fee waiver 21 || application in docket 5:24-cv-03353-SVK, he needs to file his updated application in that 22 || docket. de Tagle may seek help from the Federal Pro Se Program at the San Jose 23 || Courthouse, which provides free information and limited-scope legal advice. The Program 24 || is available by phone appointment at (408) 297-1480. There are also online resources 25 || available on the Court’s webpage (https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/). 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: July 1, 2024 h& -e _

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

28 United States Magistrate Judge