(PC) McCoy v. Sacramento County Jail

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 10, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01770
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME ELI MCCOY, No. 2:22-cv-01770 AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Currently pending before the court is plaintiff’s first amended 21 complaint for screening. ECF No. 13. 22 I. Screening Standard 23 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a 24 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 25 The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 26 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 28 1 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 2 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 3 Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 4 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 5 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 6 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 7 constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 8 Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted). 9 II. Allegations in the Amended Complaint 10 At all times relevant to the allegations in the amended complaint, plaintiff was a mentally 11 ill inmate at the Sacramento County Jail. He challenges his medical and mental health treatment, 12 living conditions, and his injuries resulting from a slip and fall accident. 13 III. Analysis 14 Examination of the amended complaint and review of the court’s dockets reveal that 15 plaintiff’s complaint contains allegations that are identical to, and therefore duplicative of, claims 16 raised in the complaint docketed on October 6, 2022, in McCoy v. Sac County Jail, No. 2:22-cv- 17 01769-CKD (E.D. Cal.).1 Plaintiff filed this case on the exact same day using the exact same type 18 of form as in the earlier filed action. Although the complaints in the two actions are not 19 photocopies of the same document, the factual allegations are the same. 20 “A complaint ‘that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims’” is subject to 21 dismissal. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105, n. 2 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Bailey v. 22 Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)). “[A] duplicative action arising from the same 23 series of events and alleging many of the same facts as an earlier suit” may be dismissed as 24 frivolous or malicious. See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint is 25 duplicative of that filed in McCoy v. Sac County Jail, No. 2:22-cv-01769-CKD (E.D. Cal.) (E.D. 26 Cal.), because it repeats the same allegations against the same defendants. For this reason, the 27 1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 28 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 1 | undersigned recommends dismissing the amended complaint as duplicative. 2 IV. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party 3 Since plaintiff is acting as his own attorney in this case, the court wants to make sure that 4 | the words of this order are understood. The following information is meant to explain this order 5 || in plain English and is not intended as legal advice. 6 You filed the same claims against Sacramento County Jail officials in two different cases, 7 || but the law only allows you to pursue these claims in one case. Because this case was filed after 8 || the first case, it is recommended that this case be dismissed. This recommendation still allows 9 || you to pursue your claims against Sacramento County Jail officials in your earlier filed lawsuit of 10 | McCoy v. Sac County Jail, No. 2:22-cv-01769-CKD. 11 If you can explain how these two cases are different, you may do so within 14 days of this 12 || order. Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 13 || Recommendations.” 14 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court 15 || randomly assign this matter to a district court judge. 16 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 17 1. Plaintiffs amended complaint be dismissed as duplicative of a prior action. 18 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 17) be denied as moot in 19 light of the dismissal of this action. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). Within fourteen days 22 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 23 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 24 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 25 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 26 | (9th Cir. 1991). ~ 27 | DATED: April 10, 2024 Cttten—Clap—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE