Opinion
2:24-cv-03524-WLH-PD
08-22-2024
Paul Navarrete Quintana. v. Cynthia Lermond, et al
Present: The Honorable: Patricia Donahue, U.S. Magistrate Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why the Complaint Should Not be Dismissed as Duplicative
On April 25, 2024, Plaintiff Paul Navarrete Quintana (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“the Complaint”) and a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Dkt. Nos. 1, 2 (the “2024 Case”).] The Complaint names Cynthia Lermond, Melisa Jones, Nicole Paglione, Melinda Wolbransky, Dae Peter Lee, Rae Huebner, Ashley Cabadas, Lisa Real, Kimberly Clabbet, Meredith Michaels, psychologists at Gateways Hospital and Mental Health Center (“Gateways Hospital”), a California Department of State Hospitals (“DSH”) facility, and Johnny Jelhaouli, a licensed clinical social worker, as defendants in both their individual and official capacities. [Id. at 12-13.] Plaintiff also names DSH-Los Angeles “Administration”, Gateways Hospital Forensic Community Treatment Program, Gateways Hospital Satellite Program, Golden Legacy Care Center, Mental Health Management Services, and an unspecified number of Does as defendants (collectively “Defendants”). [Id.] Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights while he has been civilly committed at a DSH facility. [Id. at 13.]
I. Pertinent Procedural History
Previously, on August 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this district, along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP request”), naming most of the same defendants. See Quintana v. Lermond, et al., 5:23-cv-01522-WLH-PD (the “2023 Case”), Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. On September 11, 2023, the Court issued an Order, postponing the ruling on the IFP request because it was unclear from the complaint whether Plaintiff is a civil detainee. [Dkt. No. 10.] As such, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a statement explaining his custody status within 30 days of the Order. [Id.]
Plaintiff proceeded to file an “Affidavit in Support of the Complaint”, a “Supplemental Affidavit”, and a “Notice of Motion for Dismissal,” which the Court construed as a notice of voluntary dismissal. [See Dkt. Nos. 12, 13, 14.] Accordingly, on September 29, 2023, the Court dismissed the 2023 Case.
On March 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit, stating that he did not mean in his earlier filing to voluntarily dismiss the 2023 Case. [Dkt. No. 23.] On May 22, 2024, the Ninth Circuit directed the closed notation be removed from the docket and the case be reopened. [Dkt. No. 32.] Accordingly, on June 4, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's IFP request, and the 2023 Case was reopened. [Dkt. No. 33.]
II. Discussion
The Court is required to screen pro se complaints and dismiss claims that, amount other things, are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it merely “repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations and internal quotations omitted). “A duplicative action, arising from the same series of events and alleging many of the same facts as an earlier suit may be dismissed as frivolous or malicious under Section 1915(e).” Lewis v. Ugwueze, 2020 WL 5899515, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2020). “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the comprehensive disposition of litigation.” Adams v. California, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007).
In assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, the court examines “whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” Parker v. Yates, 2012 WL 3912958, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2012).
Upon review, the Court finds that this action - the 2024 case - is substantively identical to Plaintiff's now reopened 2023 Case. In the 2023 Case, Plaintiff raises the same claims against almost all of the same defendants and alleges an almost identical set of facts. As such, this action is subject to dismissal as duplicative.
III. Order
For the foregoing reasons, by September 21, 2024, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not recommend that the Complaint be dismissed as duplicative. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
If, given the contents of this Order, Plaintiff elects not to proceed in this action, he may expedite matters by signing and returning the attached Notice of Dismissal by September 21, 2024, which will result in the voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.
Plaintiff is cautioned that, absent further order of the Court, his failure to timely file a response to this Order or Notice of Dismissal, may result in the dismissal of this action with or without prejudice on the grounds above or for failure to diligently prosecute.
Attachments:
--Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (CV-09)