Opinion
23-cv-03557-EMC
03-29-2024
CARL FOUST, Plaintiffs, v. GODINEZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
DOCKET NOS. 2, 5
EDWARD M. CHEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint and subsequently filed a copy of an order issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See Docket Nos. 1, 8. It appears Plaintiff filed the same claims, against the same defendants, regarding the same facts, in the Eastern District of California. See Docket No. 1, Foust v. Allen, Case No. 23-cv-0179-DAD-DMC (E.D. Cal. filed Jan. 30, 2023) (suing a fourth defendant in addition to the three named in the Northern District action).
In Plaintiff's Eastern District action, Defendants have responded to the complaint, and the matter has been referred to mediation. See Docket Nos. 30-32, Foust v. Allen, Case No. 23-cv-0179-DAD-DMC (E.D. Cal.).
Litigants may not file cases that duplicate claims brought in another case. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed). Mr. Foust's decision to inform this Court of his identical action in the Eastern District suggests that he recognizes this problem, and seeks to remedy it. See Docket No. 8. Thus, the Court construes Mr. Foust's filing as a notification that he did not intend to file the instant action.
The instant action is DISMISSED as opened in error. No filing fee is due for this erroneously opened case, so Mr. Foust's in forma pauperis applications are DENIED as moot.
The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.