(PC) Merron v. Cavagnaro

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 CHRISTOPHER RYAN MERRON, No. 1:24-cv-00735 GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ORDER RECOMMENDING THAT 14 JOSIE M. CAVAGNARO, PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION BE DENIED 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 2) [16] ORDER RECOMMENDING THAT THIS 17 MATTER BE DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE [18] PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS DUE JULY 10, 19 2024 [20] 21 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 22 (ECF No. 1) (“Merron II”) and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in 23 forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 6) (in forma pauperis application, trust account statement). This 24 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). 25 For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that Plaintiff’s application 26 to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that this matter be dismissed as duplicative of Merron 27 v. Cavagnaro, No. 1:24-cv-00677 GSA (“Merron I”). Plaintiff will be given fourteen days to file 28 objections to these findings and recommendations. 1 I. RELEVANT FACTS 2 On June 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint, along with an application to proceed in 3 forma pauperis in Merron I. See Merron I, ECF Nos. 1, 2. On June 14, 2024, after Plaintiff’s 4 prison trust fund account statement had been received and reviewed (see Merron I, ECF No. 6) 5 (trust account statement), Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted in 6 Merron I. See Merron I, ECF No. 1 at 7. 7 Days later, on June 24, 2024, the instant action, Merron II, was docketed. See Merron II, 8 ECF No. 1 at 1 (date stamp on complaint). An application to proceed in forma pauperis, along 9 with a prison trust fund account statement, have also been filed in this case. See Merron II, ECF 10 Nos. 2, 6. 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 A comparison of the complaints in both matters indicates that they are identical in content. 13 Compare Merron I, ECF No. 1, with Merron II, ECF No. 1. “Plaintiffs generally have no right to 14 maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same 15 court and against the same defendant.” Adams v. California Dep’t of Hlth. Servs., 487 F.3d 684 , 16 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 17 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977)). For these reasons, the undersigned will recommend that Plaintiff’s 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis filed in this case, Merron II, be denied and that this 19 matter be dismissed as duplicative of Merron I. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 21 District Judge to this matter. 22 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2, 6) be DENIED, and 24 2. This matter be DISMISSED as DUPLICATIVE of Merron v. Cavagnaro, No. 1:24-cv25 00677 GSA. 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 1 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 2 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 3 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 4 (9th Cir. 1991). [6] IT IS SO ORDERED. [7] 8 Dated: June 26, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE