Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williamson v. Briones

United States District Court, S.D. California

November 4, 2019

GUY ORLANDO WILLIAMSON, CDCR #BG-9879, Plaintiff,
v.
BRIONES, Correctional Officer; SALIS, Correctional Officer, 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]

          Hon. Larry A. Burns Chief United States District Judge

         Guy 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).

         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). 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)).

         Plaintiff's 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)).

         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 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).

         II. Conclusion and Order

         Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

         IT 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.