Opinion
1:20-cv-00603-GSA-PC
05-13-2020
PABLO M. CHAVEZ, Plaintiff, v. KINGS COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
(ECF No. 5.)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO MOVE THE COMPLAINT FROM THIS CASE INTO CASE 1:20-cv-00369-EPG-PC AS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THIS CASE
ORDER FOR CLERK TO DOCKET THIS ORDER IN CASES 1:20-cv-00369-EPG-PC, 1:20-cv-00471-SKO-PC, AND 1:20-cv-00518-JDP-PC
I. BACKGROUND
Pablo M. Chavez ("Plaintiff") is a Kings County Jail inmate proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint commencing this action was filed on April 28, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) On May 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification. (ECF No. 5.)
Plaintiff also filed the same motion for clarification in his cases 1:20-cv-00369-EPG-PC, 1:20-cv-00471-SKO-PC, and 1:20-cv-00518-JDP-PC. (Court Record.) --------
II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
Plaintiff requests clarification of the status of four of his cases:
(1) 1:20-cv-00369-EPG-PC ("20-369");
(2) 1:20-cv-00471-SKO-PC ("20-471");
(3) 1:20-cv-00518-JDP-PC ("20-518"); and
(4) 1:20-cv-00603-GSA-PC ("20-603").
Plaintiff asserts that he amended three of the cases - 20-369, 20-471, and 20-518 -- and joined those cases together into case 20-603. Plaintiff now questions why he was granted leave to amend the complaint in case 20-369 when he already amended it in case 20-603.
III. DISCUSSION
The court finds the following on the court's record:
On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed cases 20-471 and 20-518 as duplicative of case 20-369. (20-471, ECF No. 7; 20-518, ECF No. 6.) Therefore, only two of the four cases at issue are currently pending, cases 20-369 and 20-603;
On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint in case 20-369 (20-369, ECF No. 11.)
On April 28, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a complaint to the court, which was used to open a new case 20-603; (20-603, ECF No. 1.) and,
On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint in case 20-369 was granted. (20-369, ECF No. 12.)
The court has reviewed the complaints in cases 20-369 and 20-603 and finds that the complaint used to open case 20-603 should be moved into case 20-369 as a First Amended Complaint, and that case 20-603 should be dismissed based on the following: Plaintiff's understanding of the cases expressed in his motion for clarification; the similarities of the allegations, claims, and requested relief in the two complaints; the order of events in the two cases; and the motion to amend filed by Plaintiff and granted in case 20-369. Therefore, the court shall direct the Clerk to move the complaint filed in this case on April 28, 2020 into case 20-369, and then administratively close this case. /// /// ///
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The court finds that the original complaint filed in this case, 20-603, should be filed as the First Amended Complaint in case 20-369;
2. The Clerk is directed to:
(1) MOVE the original Complaint from this case 20-603 into case 20-369 as the First Amended Complaint;
(2) Administratively CLOSE this case 20-603; and
(3) DOCKET this order in these cases:
IT IS SO ORDERED.20-603 (this case),
20-369,
20-471, and
20-518.
Dated: May 13 , 2020
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE