United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
C. COUGHENOUR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's objections
(Dkt. No. 5) to the report and recommendation
(“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 4) of the Honorable Brian
A. Tsuchida, United States Magistrate Judge. Having
thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the
relevant record, the Court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff's
objections, ADOPTS Judge Tsuchida's R&R, and
DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint for the reasons explained
is currently confined in King County Correction Facility -
Seattle. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1.) While incarcerated in 2018,
Plaintiff founded the “Keepers of the Light”
religion, which he now practices. (Dkt. No. 4 at 2.)
Plaintiff alleges that his religion mandates, among other
things, using marijuana four times a day, wearing religious
head coverings, and consuming animal meat off the bone three
times a day. (See Dkt. No. 1.) On April 25, 2019,
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Western District of
Washington against King County Correctional Officers Troy
Bacon, Garrett Ferreiro, Dale Porter, and Todd Clarin.
See Silva v. Bacon, No. C19-0619-RAJ, Dkt. No. 1 at
1 (W.D. Wash. 2019). In that suit, Plaintiff alleges that the
defendants violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment
rights, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), based on the
defendants' refusal to allow him to wear his religious
head coverings. Id. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff
filed this lawsuit against Officer Bacon alone, again
alleging violations of the First Amendment, Fourteenth
Amendment, and RLUIPA, based on Defendant's refusal to
accommodate Plaintiff's religious dietary restrictions.
(See Dkt. No. 1.) Judge Tsuchida's R&R
recommends dismissing Plaintiff's complaint in this case
as duplicative of Plaintiff's previous lawsuit. (Dkt. No.
4 at 1.) Plaintiff has filed objections to the R&R. (Dkt.
Standard of Review
Court reviews objections to a magistrate judge's report
and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” Id.
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.”
Adams v. Cal. Dep't. of Health Servs., 487 F.3d
684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Walton v. Eaton
Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977)). “[A] suit
is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief
do not significantly differ between the two actions.”
three legal claims in this lawsuit are identical to the legal
claims in his previously-filed lawsuit. Compare
Silva, No. C19-0619-RAJ, Dkt. No. 1 at 3, with
(Dkt. No. 1 at 8-10). Defendant in this lawsuit, Officer
Bacon, is also named as a defendant in the previously-filed
lawsuit. Compare Silva, No. C19-0619-RAJ, Dkt. No. 1
at 2, with (Dkt. No. 1 at 1). Plaintiff's claims
for relief in this lawsuit are identical to the claims for
relief Plaintiff makes in the previously-filed lawsuit.
Compare Silva, No. C19-0619-RAJ, Dkt. No. 1 at
15-16, with (Dkt. No. 1 at 9-10). Finally, both
lawsuits arise out of the same allegation that members of the
King County correctional staff are preventing Plaintiff from
practicing his religion. Compare Silva, No.
C19-0619-RAJ, Dkt. No. 1, with (Dkt. No. 1).
Therefore, Judge Tsuchida's R&R found this lawsuit
duplicative of Plaintiff's earlier-filed lawsuit and
recommends dismissal on this ground.
does not dispute Judge Tsuchida's finding that the
filings are duplicative. (See Dkt. No. 5.) Rather,
Plaintiff's objections to Judge Tsuchida's R&R
assert that if this lawsuit is dismissed, Plaintiff will lose
his copies of the exhibits attached to his complaint.
(Id. at 1.) However, the Clerk has provided
Plaintiff with a courtesy copy of his complaint and all
attached exhibits filed in this case upon Plaintiff's
request. (Dkt. No. 8.) Moreover, Plaintiff's objection is
not relevant to the issue of whether this lawsuit is
duplicative of his previously-filed action. See
Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. Therefore, the Court FINDS this
lawsuit is duplicative of Plaintiff's previously-filed
foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's
objections (Dkt. No. 5), ADOPTS Judge Tsuchida's R&R
(Dkt. No. 4), and DISMISSES ...