Malloy v. Regents of the University of California

Background

Stephen Grove Malloy, proceeding without a lawyer, filed Case No. 19-cv-07995 and applied to proceed without paying filing fees. The court granted that application. A magistrate judge screened Malloy’s initial complaint and amended complaint and found them insufficient to state a claim. Malloy then filed a second amended complaint alleging thirteen causes of action: race discrimination, disabled-veteran discrimination, gender discrimination, sex discrimination, retaliation, sexual-orientation discrimination, age discrimination, sexual harassment, breach of contract, violation of the Equal Pay Act, defamation, violation of Title IX, and injunctive relief. A report and recommendation addressing that complaint remained pending.

While the first case was pending, Malloy filed another action against what the opinion describes as the same defendants in California state court. The second action contained the same factual allegations and thirteen generally corresponding causes of action. The defendants removed that action to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss, which was not yet fully briefed when this order was issued. The two cases were related.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a district court has broad authority to manage its docket, including dismissing duplicative claims. It stated that plaintiffs generally may not maintain two actions at the same time in the same court against the same defendant concerning the same subject matter. The court said the two actions appeared duplicative because they involved the same parties, causes of action, and requested relief.

The court further explained that a case filed by a person permitted to proceed without paying filing fees must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court stated that such a case may also be dismissed as duplicative when it repeats pending or previously litigated claims. Because the defendants had appeared and filed a motion to dismiss in the other related case, the court found that continuing to screen the operative complaint in the earlier fee-waiver case would waste judicial resources. It found dismissal of Case No. 19-cv-07995 appropriate.

Ruling

Judge Aundra Brown Armstrong ordered Malloy to show cause—meaning to explain—why Case No. 19-cv-07995 should not be dismissed with prejudice as duplicative of Case No. 20-cv-07312. Malloy was required to file a written response of no more than five pages by November 27, 2020. The order warned that failure to respond on time would result in dismissal of Case No. 19-cv-07995 with prejudice and without further notice. The order itself was not a final dismissal; it directed Malloy to respond before the threatened dismissal.