November 12, 2013
CHARLES E. MOSES, JR., CDCR #K-65174, Plaintiff,
CYNTHIA WHITE, Defendant.
ORDER:(1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); and (2) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
LARRY ALAN BURNS, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California 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. 2].
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 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 has already litigated. Plaintiff's Complaint contains identical claims that are found in Moses v. White, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 12cv0073 JLS (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 has already litigated the same claims presented in the instant action in Moses v. White, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 12cv0073 JLS (BGS), the Court hereby DISMISSES Civil Case No. 13cv2610 LAB (MDD) 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.
II. Conclusion and Order
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff's Complaint in Civil Case No. 13cv2610 LAB (MDD) 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.