1 2

JS-6

3

4 5 6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISMAEL VILLARREAL, Case No. 5:21-cv-01811-VBF (AFM) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. 14 RALPH DIAZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 In September 2020, Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Case No. 5:20-cv-01942-VBF (AFM). While the 20 complaint originally was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern 21 District of California, it was subsequently transferred to this Court. On September 27, 22 2021, the action was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed a notice of 23 appeal, and his appeal is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. 24 The present action was filed on October 22, 2021. (ECF 1.) The complaint is 25 identical to the complaint filed in Case No. 5:20-cv-01942-VBF (AFM). In fact, the 26 complaint in the present action was signed on the same date – September 1, 2020 – 27 as the previously filed complaint. On November 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice 28 informing the Court that the present action appears to be mistakenly filed and 1 requesting that the Clerk correct the error. (ECF 6.) The Court construes the 2 document as a request for voluntary dismissal, and grants Plaintiff’s request. See Fed. 3 R. Civ. P. 41(a). 4 In addition, because the present complaint is duplicative of an earlier-filed 5 complaint, the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss the later action without 6 prejudice. See Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 7 2007) (district court has discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action), 8 overruled on other grounds, Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008); Melvin v. 9 United States, 2016 WL 3125703, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2016) (dismissing later- 10 filed petition as duplicative and observing that petitioner’s “initiation of identical 11 habeas actions in two different districts is wholly antithetical to principles of judicial 12 economy”); see generally Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000) (stating that 13 federal courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and “prevent duplicative 14 or unnecessary litigation”). 15 ORDER 16 IT IS ORDERED that the current petition is dismissed without prejudice. 17 This action shall be closed and TERMINATED (JS-6). 18 19 DATED: January 6, 2022 /s/ Valerie Baker Fairbank ____________________________________ 20 The Hon. VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK 21 UNITED STATES DISTICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28