GREGORY ALLEN BRAZEE, Case No.: 24-cv-0761-MMA (DDL) Booking No. 23-2740, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, ACTION FOR FAILING TO PAY vs. FILING FEE AND/OR MOVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IMPERIAL COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL STAFF, PURSUANT TO Defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) Plaintiff Gregory Allen Brazee, currently incarcerated at the Imperial County Jail (“ICJ”) in El Centro, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on April 25, 2024. (See Compl., Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the $405 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and has not filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, his case is subject to dismissal for these reasons alone. However, the Court notes Plaintiff has recently filed another civil action in the Court against the same Defendants and alleging the same claims. Accordingly, for the reasons explained below, the Court also DISMISSES this subsequently filed civil action as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 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 recently filed in this Court. See Brazee v. Imperial County Jail, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:24-cv- 00651-RBM (JLB) (“Brazee I”) (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)). In Brazee I, Plaintiff claims the ICJ, and mostly unidentified members of its medical staff, have failed over the past three months to provide proper medical care for his infected leg. (See Brazee I, Doc. No. 1 at 2‒3, 5.) On April 17, 2024, U.S. District Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP because he failed to attach certified copies of his prison trust account statements, or an institutional equivalent, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). (Id., Doc. No. 3 at 3.) Judge Montenegro granted Plaintiff 45 days leave in which to correct this deficiency, directed the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with the Court’s form Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis for his use and convenience, and advised him to complete and re-submit it to the Clerk and to include Civil Case No. 24-cv-00651-RBM (JLB) in its caption. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff has yet to comply with Judge Montenegro’s Order, but he still has time to do so. In the meantime, however, Plaintiff submitted a separate civil rights complaint with the Clerk of the Court on April 25, 2024. The subsequent complaint was assigned to this Court as Brazee v. Imperial County Jail Medical Staff, and designated Civil Case No. 24-cv-00761-MMA (DDL) (“Brazee II”), but it names the same Defendants, alleges the same causes of action based on ICJ staff’s alleged failures to adequately treat his leg infection over the last three months, and requests the same relief as the complaint Plaintiff filed on April 5, 2024 in Brazee I. (See Doc. No. 1 at 1‒3.) 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 and is currently pursuing the same claims presented in the instant action against the same defendants in Brazee I, the Court will also 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 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED based on Plaintiffs failure to pay the civil filing required by 28 U.S.C. 1914(a), his failure to move to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
GREGORY ALLEN BRAZEE, Case No.: 24-cv-0761-MMA (DDL) Booking No. 23-2740, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, ACTION FOR FAILING TO PAY vs. FILING FEE AND/OR MOVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IMPERIAL COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL STAFF, PURSUANT TO Defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) Plaintiff Gregory Allen Brazee, currently incarcerated at the Imperial County Jail (“ICJ”) in El Centro, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on April 25, 2024. (See Compl., Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the $405 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and has not filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, his case is subject to dismissal for these reasons alone. However, the Court notes Plaintiff has recently filed another civil action in the Court against the same Defendants and alleging the same claims. Accordingly, for the reasons explained below, the Court also DISMISSES this subsequently filed civil action as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 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 recently filed in this Court. See Brazee v. Imperial County Jail, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:24-cv- 00651-RBM (JLB) (“Brazee I”) (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)). In Brazee I, Plaintiff claims the ICJ, and mostly unidentified members of its medical staff, have failed over the past three months to provide proper medical care for his infected leg. (See Brazee I, Doc. No. 1 at 2‒3, 5.) On April 17, 2024, U.S. District Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP because he failed to attach certified copies of his prison trust account statements, or an institutional equivalent, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). (Id., Doc. No. 3 at 3.) Judge Montenegro granted Plaintiff 45 days leave in which to correct this deficiency, directed the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with the Court’s form Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis for his use and convenience, and advised him to complete and re-submit it to the Clerk and to include Civil Case No. 24-cv-00651-RBM (JLB) in its caption. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff has yet to comply with Judge Montenegro’s Order, but he still has time to do so. In the meantime, however, Plaintiff submitted a separate civil rights complaint with the Clerk of the Court on April 25, 2024. The subsequent complaint was assigned to this Court as Brazee v. Imperial County Jail Medical Staff, and designated Civil Case No. 24-cv-00761-MMA (DDL) (“Brazee II”), but it names the same Defendants, alleges the same causes of action based on ICJ staff’s alleged failures to adequately treat his leg infection over the last three months, and requests the same relief as the complaint Plaintiff filed on April 5, 2024 in Brazee I. (See Doc. No. 1 at 1‒3.) 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 and is currently pursuing the same claims presented in the instant action against the same defendants in Brazee I, the Court will also 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 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED based on Plaintiffs failure to pay the civil filing required by 28 U.S.C. 1914(a), his failure to move to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the dismissal of this case will operate without prejudice to Plaintiff's pursuit of his claims as alleged in Brazee v. Imperial County Jail, al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 24-cv-00651-RBM (JLB). Plaintiff is advised that any further filings he wishes to submit for Judge Montenegro’s consideration in Brazee J, must clearly include reference to Civil Case No. 24-cv-00651-RBM (JLB). The Clerk } will TERMINATE Civil Case No. 24-cv-00761-MMA (DDL), require no separate filing fee be paid,! and close the file. Dated: April 30, 2024 Mbikuk UW ldiglls HON. MICHAEL M. ELLO United States District Judge || U.S.C. § 1915 provides that even if “if prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). For those prisoners granted leave to proceed IFP, the court must assess “an initial partial filing fee” each time a prisoner “brings a civil action or files an appeal.” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 89-90 (2016) (emphasis added). Because the Court presumes Plaintiff wishes only to pursue one civil rights action related to his medical care at ICJ, it will not demand he pay the $405 civil filing fee twice.