Baize v. United States District Court, Southern District of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEBBIE BAIZE, Case No. 21-cv-01262-BAS-KSC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER: 12 v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MOTION TO PROCEED IN 14 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); CALIFORNIA, AND 15 Defendant. (2) DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT 16 PREJUDICE 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s second supplemental notice regarding her financial 19 information. In light of the information in the notice, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 20 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Motion”) (ECF No. 2) and 21 DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the action. 22 I. IFP MOTION 23 Plaintiff Debbie Baize filed this action on July 14, 2021 against the United States 24 District Court, Southern District of California. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff previously 25 filed an IFP Motion and a notice containing supplemental financial information. (ECF 26 Nos. 2, 6.) After finding that neither the Motion nor the notice established Plaintiff’s 27 inability to pay the filing fee and requiring payment in full, the Court received another 28 notice from Plaintiff informing the Court that she is presently residing at a women’s shelter 1 and is experiencing significant hardships due to the ongoing pandemic. (ECF No. 9.) In 2 light of this new information, the Court VACATES its previous order requiring payment 3 and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP. 4 II. SCREENING 5 A. Standard of Review 6 Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, her Complaint also requires a pre-answer 7 screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, 9 not just those filed by prisoners.”). Under this statute, the Court must sua sponte dismiss 10 a plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a 11 claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. Id. at 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) 12 (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). “The purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that the 13 targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.’” 14 Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford 15 Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)). 16 Claims are “by definition” frivolous where there is “no merit to the underlying 17 action[.]” Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 n.8; Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) 18 (defining an action as frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact”). 19 Actions that “‘merely repeat pending or previously litigated claims’” are considered 20 frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Thomas v. Richard J. Donovan Corr. Facility Warden, 21 No. 3:19-cv-02181-JAH-RBB, 2020 WL 364228, at *5 n.4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2020) 22 (quoting Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995)); see Martinez v. 23 Bureau of Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 316 F. App’x 640, 641 (9th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) 24 (finding no abuse of discretion where district court dismissed complaint as frivolous 25 because it repeated previously litigated claims). 26 Further, under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a complaint fails to state a claim where it does 27 not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is 28 plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation marks 1 omitted); see also Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard under 2 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as Rule 12(b)(6)). A complaint must provide a defendant 3 fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and the grounds upon which it rests, Conley v. Gibson, 4 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957), and allege facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its 5 face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare 6 recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do 7 not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 8 B. Discussion 9 Plaintiff’s Complaint states only that she was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned 10 in a state correctional facility for seven years, and that her civil rights were violated. (ECF 11 No. 1.) She seeks as relief “monetary compensation” and to “clear [her] name of 12 defamation and slander, etc.” (Id.) At minimum, Plaintiff’s statement is precisely the type 13 of “threadbare recital” or “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation” 14 that falls far short of stating a claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Complaint does 15 not contain facts describing how Plaintiff’s rights were violated or even by whom, and thus 16 cannot be said to give the defendant “fair notice of the nature of the claim” or the “grounds 17 on which the claim rests.” Conley, 335 U.S. at 47. 18 Second, it appears this action is duplicative of Plaintiff’s previous litigation before 19 this Court. To assess “whether the second action is duplicative of the first,” courts 20 “examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to 21 the action, are the same.” Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 689 22 (9th Cir. 2007). Although Plaintiff previously sued an individual and here sues the 23 Southern District of California, she appears to state claims similar to more specific 24 allegations regarding her unlawful imprisonment which were previously dismissed with 25 prejudice. (See Debbie Baize v. Austin Burton Lloyd (“Baize I”), No. 14-cv-02573-BAS 26 (JMA) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2014), ECF No. 19; Debbie Baize v. Austin Burton Lloyd (“Baize 27 II”), Case No. 3:16-cv-01893-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016), ECF No. 4.) Moreover, 28 in 2016, Plaintiff sought to “clear [her] name of all false allegations and charges” and to 1 || obtain monetary compensation for her false imprisonment, which is similar to the relief 2 || alleged here. (Baize IJ, ECF No. 1.) In both actions, the Court dismissed the actions 3 || without leave to amend and with prejudice; in the 2016 case, the Court specifically found 4 || Plaintiffs action frivolous because it was repetitive of the 2014 action. (Baize I, ECF 5 || No. 4.) 6 || WI. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 7 Accordingly, because Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim for relief and 8 || appears to be duplicative of previous litigation, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT 9 || PREJUDICE the action. Because it 1s possible Plaintiff can add facts to sufficiently state 10 || claims for relief different than those alleged in her previous lawsuits, Plaintiff is granted 11 || leave to amend her pleading. See Zixiang Li v. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2013) 12 || (“[A] district court should grant the plaintiff leave to amend if the complaint can possibly 13 || be cured by additional factual allegations[.]’”). Plaintiff must file an amended complaint 14 || by August 24, 2021. The Court cautions that if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint 15 || or request an extension of time on or before this date, this action will be dismissed with 16 || prejudice. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 / a) ud 19 || DATED: August 3, 2021 Cypilig _| Hohe st 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28