Cavalier v. Newsom

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: July 24, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-01398
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT THOMAS CAVALIER, Case No.: 20-cv-01398-MMA-KSC CDCR #E-98747, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § v. 1915A(b)(1); 14

GAVIN NEWSOM; JOHN DOE, Director 15 DENYING MOTIONS TO PROCEED of BPH Operations; RANDY GROUNDS; IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT 16 RALPH DIAZ, [Doc. No. 2] 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff Robert Thomas Cavalier, currently housed at the Richard J. Donovan 20 Correctional Facility located in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this 21 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl. at 1, Doc. No. 1. In addition, Plaintiff 22 has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(a). See Doc. No. 2. 24 I. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 25 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the 26 Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who 27 is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or 28 the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” 1 “as soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays 2 filing fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Pursuant to this 3 provision of the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints which “seek[] 4 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a government entity,” and to 5 dismiss those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief from a 7 defendant who is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 8 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). 9 “The purpose of § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need 10 not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th 11 Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 12 2012)). 13 Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1915A(b)(1) because it is duplicative of another civil action he has pending in this 15 Court. See Cavalier v. Pollard, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:20-cv-01379-DMS- 16 AHG (Compl., ECF Doc. No. 1). A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other 17 courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a 18 direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 19 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). Here, 20 the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint contains the same factual allegations and names 21 the same defendants that are found in Case No. Civil Case No. 3:20-cv-01379-DMS- 22 AHG. 23 A prisoner’s complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it 24 “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 25 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and 26 internal quotations omitted). Because Plaintiff has already brought the same claims 27 presented in the instant action against the same defendants in Cavalier v. Pollard, et al., 28 S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:20-cv-01379-DMS-AHG, the Court must dismiss this 1 || duplicative and subsequently filed civil case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See 2 || Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1; see also Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of 3 || Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007). 4 ||II. Conclusion and Order 5 Good cause appearing, the Court DISMISSES this civil action as frivolous 6 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) without prejudice to Plaintiff's pursuit of the same 7 claims against the same parties which are currently pending in Cavalier v. Pollard, et al., 8 ||S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:20-cv-01379-DMS-AHG. The Court DENIES AS MOOT 9 || Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of 10 || Court to enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || DATE: July 24, 2020 phisa eal) La / i ler 13 HONORABLE MICHAEL M. ANELLO 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28