The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE § 1915A(b)(1) PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
Plaintiff, currently housed at the Vista Detention Facility and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") [ECF No. 10].
I. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the Court to review complaints filed by anyone "incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program," "as soon as practicable after docketing" and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays filing fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). The Court must sua sponte dismiss prisoner complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff's instant Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it appears to be duplicative of a case Plaintiff is currently litigating. Plaintiff's Complaint contains identical claims that are found in Kimpel v. San Diego County Jail GBDF, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 12cv1383 BTM (BGS). A court "may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue." United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992).
A prisoner's complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it "merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims." Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Because Plaintiff is already litigating the same claims presented in the instant action in Kimpel v. San Diego County Jail GBDF, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 12cv1383 BTM (BGS), the Court hereby DISMISSES Civil Case No. 12cv1384 LAB (BGS) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Complaint in Civil Case No. 12cv1384 LAB (BGS) is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP is DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall close the file.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...