Walker v. Madden
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint that was filed as a new case but appeared to be an intended amended complaint for a prior case involving the same claims and defendant. The court ordered the new case to be administratively closed and directed the Clerk to file the complaint as the First Amended Complaint in the prior case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Direct the Clerk of Court to administratively close the current case (3:20-cv-01052).“DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to administratively close this matter.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the current complaint duplicates the claims and parties in the pending prior action (Walker I) and was likely intended as an amended pleading. Closing the duplicate case is a standard administrative measure to prevent duplicative litigation and manage the docket. The order explicitly states this closure will not count as a 'strike' under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which is appropriate given the procedural nature of the error. |
Direct the Clerk of Court to file the current complaint as the First Amended Complaint in case 3:20-cv-00404-CAB-AHG (Walker I).“DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) as Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint in 3:20-cv-00404-CAB-AHG.” | agree with court The court found that the plaintiff was granted leave to amend in Walker I and that the current complaint contained the same facts and defendant. By treating the new filing as the amended complaint in the existing case, the court preserves the plaintiff's opportunity to cure the deficiencies identified in the prior dismissal order, rather than dismissing the new case outright. This is a reasonable exercise of judicial administration to ensure the merits are addressed in the proper case. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the doctrine of judicial notice to the court's own records to identify the duplicate nature of the filing. The decision to close the new case and transfer the complaint to the existing case as an amended pleading is a logical and efficient resolution that respects the plaintiff's prior leave to amend. The authorities cited are appropriate for the proposition of taking judicial notice of prior proceedings.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON M. WALKER, Case No.: 3:20-cv-01052-GPC-KSC CDCR #T-35851, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 vs. 1) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE 15 CASE; RAYMOND MADDEN, 16 Defendant. AND 17 3) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 18 TO FILE COMPLAINT AS FIRST 19 AMENDED COMPLAINT IN 3:20-cv- 00404-CAB-AHG 20 21 22 23 24 Aaron M. Walker (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner incarcerated at Centinela State Prison 25 (“CEN”) located in Imperial, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 26 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has not filed a Motion to 27 Proceed In Forma Pauperis or paid the initial civil filing fee. 28 1 In his Complaint, Plaintiff names as the only Defendant, Raymond Madden, 2 Warden for CEN. (See Compl. at 1.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his 3 constitutional rights were violated in 2019 when he was forced to house with another 4 inmate and later found guilty of possessing contraband that purportedly belonged to his 5 cellmate. (See id. at 3-8.) 6 Plaintiff has previously filed an action that involves the same claims and also 7 names Raymond Madden as a Defendant. A court may take judicial notice of its own 8 records, see Molus v. Swan, Civil Case No. 3:05-cv-00452-MMA-WMc, 2009 WL 9 160937, *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2009) (citing United States v. Author Services, 804 F.2d 10 1520, 1523 (9th Cir. 1986)); Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 11 1011, 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2015), and “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both 12 within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation 13 to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 14 Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States 15 ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 16 1992). 17 Here, the Court takes judicial notice of the previous action Plaintiff filed in Walker 18 v. Gonzalez, et al., 3:20-cv-00404-CAB-AHG (“Walker I”). The facts alleged in Walker 19 I involve the same set of facts against the same Defendant that are contained in this 20 matter. (See Id., ECF No. 1, Complaint.) In Walker I, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s 21 Complaint for failing to state a claim on April 30, 2020. (See id., Apr. 30, 2020 Order, 22 ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff was granted forty-five (45) days leave to file an amended 23 complaint to correct the problems with his pleading as identified by the Court. (See id.) 24 In the current case (“Walker II”), it appears that Plaintiff likely intended to have his 25 Complaint in this case to be his amended pleading in Walker I. However, Plaintiff did 26 not label it as an amended pleading or provide the Walker I case number on the pleading 27 and therefore, it was opened as a new case. 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to administratively close this 2 || matter and file Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) as his First Amended Complaint in 3 || Walker I. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must label all future filings in Walker I with the 4 || proper case number. 5 Conclusion and Orders 6 For the reasons explained, the Court: 7 1) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) as 8 || Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint in 3:20-cv-00404-CAB-AHG. 9 2) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to administratively close this matter. This 10 matter will not constitute a “strike” for 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) purposes. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: July 24, 2020 2 A 13 Hon. athe Coke 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28