United States District Court, S.D. California
ROBERT HATCHER, et al., Inmate Booking No. 19705701, Plaintiff,
SNR SERINA; DR. FREEDLAND DR. LEON, Defendants.
ORDER: (1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(B)(1); AND (2) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT [ECF DOC. NO. 2]
ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Hatcher (“Plaintiff”), currently detained at the
San Diego Central Jail (“SDCJ”) located in San
Diego, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
See Compl., ECF Doc. No. 1.
did not pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. §
1914(a) to commence a civil action when he filed his
Complaint; instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). See ECF Doc. No. 2.
Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
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). Pursuant to this provision of the PLRA, the Court is
required to review prisoner complaints which “seek
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of
a government entity, ” and to dismiss those, or any
portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or
fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
” or which “seek monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2);
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir.
2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th
Cir. 2011). “The purpose of § 1915A is ‘to
ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need
not bear the expense of responding.'” Nordstrom
v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d
680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).
Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it is identical and
duplicative of another civil action he has filed in this
Court. See Hatcher v. Serina, et al., S.D. Cal.
Civil Case No. 3:19cv1089-JAH-LL. 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.'”
Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir.
2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d
801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). Here, the Court finds that
Plaintiff's Complaint filed in this action is identical
to the pleading he filed in Hatcher v. Serina, et
al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:19cv1089-JAH-LL.
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
brought the same claims presented in the instant action
against the same defendants in Hatcher v. Serina, et
al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:19cv1089-JAH-LL, the
Court must dismiss this duplicative and subsequently filed
civil case 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; see also Adams v. Cal. Dep 't of Health
Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“[I]n assessing whether the second action is
duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of
action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies
to the action, are the same.”), overruled on other
grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).
Conclusion and Order
cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action
is DISMISSED as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (ECF Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
Clerk shall close the file.