Opinion
5:21-cv-01811-VBF (AFM)
01-06-2022
ISMAEL VILLARREAL, Plaintiff, v. RALPH DIAZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Hon. VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK UNITED STATES DISTICT JUDGE
In September 2020, Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Case No. 5:20-cv-01942-VBF (AFM). While the complaint originally was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, it was subsequently transferred to this Court. On September 27, 2021, the action was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and his appeal is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit.
The present action was filed on October 22, 2021. (ECF 1.) The complaint is identical to the complaint filed in Case No. 5:20-cv-01942-VBF (AFM). In fact, the complaint in the present action was signed on the same date - September 1, 2020 - as the previously filed complaint. On November 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that the present action appears to be mistakenly filed and requesting that the Clerk correct the error. (ECF 6.) The Court construes the document as a request for voluntary dismissal, and grants Plaintiff's request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).
In addition, because the present complaint is duplicative of an earlier-filed complaint, the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss the later action without prejudice. See Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court has discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action), overruled on other grounds, Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008); Melvin v. United States, 2016 WL 3125703, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2016) (dismissing later-filed petition as duplicative and observing that petitioner's “initiation of identical habeas actions in two different districts is wholly antithetical to principles of judicial economy”); see generally Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000) (stating that federal courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and “prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation”).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the current petition is dismissed without prejudice. This action shall be closed and TERMINATED (JS-6).