1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 PABLO MENDOZA CHAVEZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-00518-JDP

10 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

11 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS

DUPLICATIVE OF CASE NUMBERS 1:20-

12 KINGS COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

CV-00471-SKO AND 1:20-CV-00369-EPG

13 Defendants.

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

14 15 Plaintiff Pablo Chavez is a pretrial detainee proceeding without counsel in this civil 16 rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that he is receiving inadequate 17 medical care for his back injury. See ECF No. 1. 18 In two recently filed actions in this district—case numbers 1:20-CV-00471-SKO and 19 1:20-CV-00369-EPG—plaintiff also alleges similar constitutional violations related to his back 20 injury and pain. But a plaintiff has “no right to maintain two separate actions involving the 21 same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” 22 Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977). To see whether an action is 23 duplicative, we “examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties 24 or privies to the action, are the same.” Adams v. California Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 25 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007). 26 This action appears duplicative: the basic subject matter, defendants, causes of action, 27 and relief sought appear either identical or contain substantial overlap. We will give plaintiff thirty days to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as duplicative. wOAOe LOVE MEMEO POR a eA ev

1 The three actions may have slightly different named defendants or points of emphasis. 2 | The court notes, however, that plaintiff may wish to simply amend his complaint in the earliest 3 | of the three cases, 1:20-CV-00369-EPG—adding defendants and related claims—and 4 | voluntarily dismiss the other two cases. Both the court and the plaintiff will likely benefit from 5 | having all of the claims considered in one document and by one judge. Plaintiff may also 6 | benefit from limiting his own obligation to pay multiple filing fees for multiple lawsuits. 7 | (Here, the court will hold off on deciding plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis—the 8 | granting of which would obligate him to pay the fee—auntil plaintiff responds to this order.) 9 10 T IS SO ORDERED. p : CN prssenn —_ ated: _ April 16, 2020 12 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14] No. 205. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28