Hoffman v. United States Food and Drug Administration
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:24-cv-04104
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hoffman v. United States Food and Drug Administration, Judge Van Keulen ordered self-represented plaintiff to explain why this duplicative case should not be dismissed without prejudice.
Self-represented plaintiff Kristin Hoffman, whose duplicative federal case was ordered to be explained by July 19, 2024, and could be dismissed without prejudice if she did not respond.
What happened
In Hoffman v. United States Food and Drug Administration, self-represented plaintiff Kristin Hoffman filed a complaint containing the same allegations against the same defendants as an earlier case already before the court.
The court explained that plaintiffs generally may not maintain two separate cases involving the same subject matter against the same defendant in the same court. It said that an amended complaint should be filed in the earlier case, and that an appeal—not a new case—is the proper way to challenge the earlier judge’s decision.
Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered Hoffman to respond in writing by July 19, 2024, explaining why this case is different and should not be dismissed. The order said the court may dismiss the case without prejudice if Hoffman does not respond; it did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Hoffman v. United States Food and Drug Administration · No. 5:24-cv-04104
- Susan Van Keulen
- July 9, 2024
Background
Self-represented plaintiff Kristin Hoffman filed this complaint on July 8, 2024. The court found that it contained the same allegations against the same defendants as Hoffman’s separate earlier case, docket number 24-cv-00623-SVK, before Judge Susan Van Keulen. In that earlier case, the court dismissed Hoffman’s claims with leave to amend and allowed her until July 12, 2024, to file an amended complaint.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time, in the same court, and against the same defendant. It explained that if Hoffman meant to file an amended complaint, she needed to file it in the earlier case’s docket. If she intended to challenge the earlier decision, the court stated that an appeal was the proper method because claims that have already been decided cannot be relitigated in a new case.
Order
The court ordered Hoffman to respond in writing by Friday, July 19, 2024, explaining why this case is different and should not be dismissed. The order states that the court may dismiss this case without prejudice if Hoffman does not respond. The order is an order to show cause; it does not itself dismiss the case. The court also identified the Federal Pro Se Program as a resource for Hoffman, who is representing herself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.