Opinion
CASE NO: 1:09-cv-00484-GBC (PC)
10-13-2011
BARRY LOUIS LAMON, Plaintiff, v. MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON
RELATED CASES
(Doc. 19)
Barry Louis Lamon ("Plaintiff') is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on March 16, 2009. (Doc. 1). On April 12, 2011, the magistrate judge issued an order to show cause in a different action filed by Plaintiff, Lamon v. Adams, et al., 1:07-cv-01390-LJO-GBC, regarding whether the action should be dismissed as duplicative. Lamon v. Adams, et al., 1:07-cv-01390-LJO-GBC (Doc. 74). On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court for an evidentiary hearing to aid Plaintiff in determining which claims among his multiple pending actions are duplicative. (Doc. 19).
Plaintiff seeks an evidentiary hearing to sort out the potentially duplicative claims in his civil actions and he cites to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (the All Writs Act) and Local Rule 123(a) as authority for his motion. The All Writs Act authorizes the issuance of extraordinary writs in aid of the issuing court's jurisdiction. Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534, 119 S.Ct. 1538 (1999) (quotations omitted). Plaintiff's reliance on the All Writs Act in support of his request for an evidentiary hearing is misplaced and his citation to the Act is disregarded. The matter of res judicata was addressed in a different action and is not currently an issue in this action since the Court has yet to screen the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Additionally, it is the duty of the Plaintiff to keep records regarding his multiple pending actions and to ensure against filing duplicative claims and there is no provision that entitles Plaintiff to a general evidentiary hearing to address the issue of duplicative claims in his pending actions. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ____