Opinion
24-cv-03480-NC
07-01-2024
AUSTIN DE TAGLE, Plaintiff, v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS DUPLICATIVE RE: ECF 4
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Self-represented Plaintiff Austin de Tagle filed a complaint on June 10, 2024. ECF 1. The complaint is the same as one already filed with the Court at docket 5:24-cv-03353-SVK. “Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” Mendoza v. Amalgamated Transit Union Int'l, 30 F.4th 879, 886 (9th Cir.) (quotation marks omitted). Having multiple identical cases is not efficient for the parties or the Court and risks creating inconsistencies. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS de Tagle to respond in writing by Friday, July 12, 2024, explaining why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice. The Court may dismiss this case if de Tagle does not respond.
Though the complaints are identical, the in forma pauperis (fee waiver) applications in each docket are different. If de Tagle's intent was to file an updated fee waiver application in docket 5:24-cv-03353-SVK, he needs to file his updated application in that docket. de Tagle may seek help from the Federal Pro Se Program at the San Jose Courthouse, which provides free information and limited-scope legal advice. The Program is available by phone appointment at (408) 297-1480. There are also online resources available on the Court's webpage (https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/).
IT IS SO ORDERED.