Foust v. Godinez

Background

Carl Foust filed a civil-rights complaint against Godinez and other defendants in the Northern District of California. He later filed a copy of an order from a prior related proceeding in the Eastern District of California. The court stated that the two cases appeared to involve the same claims, the same defendants, and the same facts, although the Eastern District case included one additional defendant.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that litigants may not file cases duplicating claims brought in another case. It cited Ninth Circuit authority stating that a complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed. But the court did not independently resolve whether the claims were legally valid. Instead, it construed Foust’s filing notifying the court about the earlier action as an indication that he did not intend to file or pursue the Northern District action.

Ruling

Judge Edward M. Chen ordered that the Northern District action be dismissed as opened in error. The court also ruled that no filing fee was due and that Foust’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee were denied as moot. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file. The opinion does not state that the court reached the merits of Foust’s civil-rights claims.