Espinoza

(PC) Galvan v. Espinoza

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 20252:24-cv-02037California1,796 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 JESUS E. GALVAN, No. 2:24-cv-02033-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, No. 2:24-cv-02037-EFB (PC) v. DUSTIN ESPINOSA, ORDER Defendant. 15 Plaintiff is an inmate of the Stanislaus County Public Safety Center proceeding without counsel in these two actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. These proceedings were referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In addition to filing complaints, plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Duplicative Cases Plaintiff’s complaints in the above-captioned cases are identical. In addition, he has submitted identical requests for leave to present a late claim and to proceed in forma pauperis in the two cases. “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 v. Cal.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.