Nguyen v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TRANG NGUYEN, Case No. 25-cv-05560-JSC (PR)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, a federal prisoner who is proceeding without representation by an attorney, filed 14 this civil complaint against the United States of America. She is granted leave to proceed in forma 15 pauperis (“IFP”) in a separate order. For the reasons explained below, the complaint is dismissed 16 as duplicative of the claims in Nguyen v.Marshall, et al., No. 25-5529 JSC (PR). 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 21 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 22 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 23 § 1915A(b). Section 1915(e)(2) provides that the court “shall” dismiss any case brought IFP “if 24 the court determines”1 that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action or appeal is 25 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 26 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Pleadings filed by unrepresented parties 27 1 must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 2 LEGAL CLAIMS 3 The complaint is a five-page typed complaint that Plaintiff attached to a form civil 4 complaint. (ECF No. 1 at 6-10.) The day before filing this case, Plaintiff filed another civil case 5 in this court in Nguyen v. Marshall, et al., No. C 25-5529 JSC (PR) (ECF No. 1). The complaint 6 in that case also consists of a five-page typed complaint attached to a form civil complaint. (Id.) 7 The typed complaints in both cases are identical and appear to be photocopies. In both cases, the 8 form complaints contain only cursory information, and virtually all of the factual allegations and 9 claims are set forth in the attached typed complaints. The only meaningful difference in the two 10 cases is that in her prior case, the form complaint named two individuals in addition to the United 11 States of America as defendants. (See id.) 12 An in forma pauperis complaint that “‘merely repeats pending or previously litigated 13 claims’” may be considered malicious and dismissed at the screening stage. Cato v. United States, 14 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 15 1988)).2 “[A] duplicative action arising from the same series of events and alleging many of the 16 same facts as an earlier suit ” is subject to dismissal as malicious under the screening standard for 17 in forma pauperis cases. Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. The complaint in this case repeats the same 18 claims and factual allegations asserted in Plaintiff’s prior case. Therefore, this case must be 19 dismissed as malicious under Sections 1915A and 1915(e). 20 // 21 //

22 23 24 25 26

27 2 Cato and Bailey were decided prior to passage of the Prison Litigation Reformation Act CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice, but without leave to 3 amend. 4 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: September 4, 2025 7 8 ne 9 JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL United States District Judge 10 1]

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28