Opinion
2:23-cv-00309-RFB-NJK
04-25-2023
GERMANI MARIE MADDEN (CANNADY), Plaintiff(s), v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendant(s).
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
NANCY J. KOPPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff brought suit against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in Case No. 2:22-cv-01829-GMN-VCF. On November 29, 2022, Judge Ferenbach denied Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma paueris and ordered Plaintiff to file an updated application using the long form. See Case No. 2:22-cv-01829-GMN-VCF, Docket No. 4. On January 5, 2023, Judge Ferenbach administratively closed that case for failure to comply with his order. Case No. 2:22-cv-01829-GMN-VCF, Docket No. 5. On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Case No. 2:22-cv-01829-GMN-VCF, Docket No. 6. On February 28, 2023, Judge Ferenbach denied that renewed application for failing to cure the deficiencies he had previously identified. Case No. 2:22-cv-01829-GMN-VCF, Docket No. 7.
On February 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed this suit against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Docket No. 1. Because litigants are not permitted to bring duplicative claims, see, e.g., Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995), the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. Docket No. 3. In particular, the Court required Plaintiff to explain the differences between this case and the former case in any response to the order to show cause. See id. at 1 n.1.
Plaintiff has filed a response to the order to show cause. Docket No. 5. Although difficult to discern, it appears that Plaintiff represents that the cases are different, but she fails to explain the difference in meaningful fashion. See id. at 1. Indeed, Plaintiff's description of the earlier case as involving “false imprisonment and police brutality,” see id., appears to track with the allegations she is making in this case, see Docket No. 1-1 at 4 (“I have bean [sic] arrested on false charges and place[d] on an ankle monitor and was mistreated while in custody”).
The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
As the claims in this case appear to duplicate those at issue in the earlier-filed case, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED.
NOTICE
This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).