United States District Court, S.D. California
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]
Larry A. Burns Chief United States District Judge
Orlando Williamson, (“Plaintiff”), currently
housed at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility
(“RJD”) located in San Diego, California, and
proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. See Compl. at 1, ECF Doc. No. 1.
Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fees required by 28
U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing; instead he has
filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (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 duplicative of
another civil action he has pending in this Court. See
Williamson v. California Dep't of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No.
3:19-cv-1178-AJB-KSC (Compl., ECF Doc. No. 1). 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)).
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 identical claims presented in the instant action
against the same defendants in Williamson v. California
Dep't of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.,
S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:19-cv-1178-AJB-KSC, 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 frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis (ECF Doc. No. 2) is
DENIED as moot and that this dismissal shall
operate without prejudice to Plaintiffs pursuit of the same
claims against the same parties which are currently pending
in Williamson v. California Dep't of ...