United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (DOC. 1.)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
has filed complaint asserting constitutional claims against a
governmental entity. (Doc. 1.) Generally, the Court is
required to screen complaints brought by inmates seeking
relief against a governmental entity or an officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or
any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . .
. the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . .
.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice, ” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)),
and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences, ” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted
as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
may bring § 1983 claims against individuals acting
“under color of state law.” See 42
U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii).
Under § 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each
defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual
allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret
Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but
nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short
of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
complaint is premised on his five-month period of
incarceration at Wasco State Prison where he claims that the
presence of black and green mold in the bathrooms and living
quarters of the prison resulted in his lung cancer. He seeks
$6, 000, 000 in damages. It appears that plaintiff has made
an identical claim in an earlier-filed case, Goods v.
Wasco State Prison, No. 1:19-cv-0661-AWI-SAB.
lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis
are subject to dismissal as either frivolous or malicious
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See, e.g., Cato
v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir.
1995); McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573,
574 (10th Cir. 1997); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d
994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846
F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). An in forma pauperis
complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated
claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under §
1915. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Bailey,
846 F.2d at 1021. Repeating the same factual allegations
asserted in an earlier case, even if now filed against new
defendants, is subject to dismissal as duplicative. See,
e.g., Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021; Van Meter
v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1975).
“Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the
issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of proceedings, promotes
judicial economy and the comprehensive disposition of
litigation.” Adams v. California, 487 F.3d
684, 688, 692–94 (9th Cir. 2007).
on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS plaintiff to show cause
within fourteen days from the date of this order why this
action should not be dismissed as duplicative of Goo ...