1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN VALDEZ, No. 2:20-cv-1144 JAM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Ivan Valdez is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the 19 undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending 20 before the court are amended plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 2 & 3.) Therein, plaintiff complains about “double 22 prosecutions.” 23 The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma 24 pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 25 2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s amended complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons 26 stated below, the undersigned will recommend that plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed 27 without leave to amend. 28 //// 1 I. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the financial showing required by 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 4 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny 5 leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed 6 complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 7 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th 8 Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Department of Child Support Services, 584 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th 9 Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed 10 IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous 11 or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the 12 District Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine 13 whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, 14 the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). 15 Moreover, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of 16 poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 17 state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune 18 defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an 19 arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. 20 Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a 21 complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the 22 factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 23 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to 24 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 25 570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as 26 true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most 27 favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. 28 Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 1 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 2 lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true 3 conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western 4 Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). 5 The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows: 6 A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s 7 jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for 8 judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 10 II. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 11 Here, plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges that in “1998” plaintiff was arrested and 12 eventually “doubled prosecuted.” (Am. Compl. (ECF No. 3) at 4.) Plaintiff made these same 13 allegations in an amended complaint filed on May 20, 2019, in Ivan Valdez v. State of California 14 Courts, No. 2:19-cv-0174 MCE DB PS. That previously filed action was dismissed without leave 15 to amended on February 6, 2020. On May 22, 2020, plaintiff’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit was 16 dismissed as frivolous. Plaintiff commenced this action on June 5, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) 17 “A complaint ‘that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims’” is subject to 18 dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1995) 19 (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)). “[A] duplicative action arising 20 from the same series of events and alleging many of the same facts as an earlier suit” may be 21 dismissed as frivolous or malicious under section 1915(e). See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. 22 “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of 23 proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the ‘comprehensive disposition of litigation.’” 24 Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 692 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), 25 overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN VALDEZ, No. 2:20-cv-1144 JAM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Ivan Valdez is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the 19 undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending 20 before the court are amended plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 2 & 3.) Therein, plaintiff complains about “double 22 prosecutions.” 23 The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma 24 pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 25 2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s amended complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons 26 stated below, the undersigned will recommend that plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed 27 without leave to amend. 28 //// 1 I. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the financial showing required by 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 4 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny 5 leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed 6 complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 7 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th 8 Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Department of Child Support Services, 584 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th 9 Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed 10 IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous 11 or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the 12 District Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine 13 whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, 14 the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). 15 Moreover, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of 16 poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 17 state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune 18 defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an 19 arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. 20 Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a 21 complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the 22 factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 23 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to 24 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 25 570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as 26 true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most 27 favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. 28 Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 1 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 2 lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true 3 conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western 4 Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). 5 The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows: 6 A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s 7 jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for 8 judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 10 II. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 11 Here, plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges that in “1998” plaintiff was arrested and 12 eventually “doubled prosecuted.” (Am. Compl. (ECF No. 3) at 4.) Plaintiff made these same 13 allegations in an amended complaint filed on May 20, 2019, in Ivan Valdez v. State of California 14 Courts, No. 2:19-cv-0174 MCE DB PS. That previously filed action was dismissed without leave 15 to amended on February 6, 2020. On May 22, 2020, plaintiff’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit was 16 dismissed as frivolous. Plaintiff commenced this action on June 5, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) 17 “A complaint ‘that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims’” is subject to 18 dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1995) 19 (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)). “[A] duplicative action arising 20 from the same series of events and alleging many of the same facts as an earlier suit” may be 21 dismissed as frivolous or malicious under section 1915(e). See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. 22 “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of 23 proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the ‘comprehensive disposition of litigation.’” 24 Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 692 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), 25 overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). To determine 26 whether a claim is duplicative, courts use the test for claim preclusion. Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. 27 “Thus, in assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, [courts] examine whether 28 the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” 1 Id. at 689 (citations omitted). “Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions 2 involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same 3 defendant.” Id. at 688 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 In this action and the previously filed action plaintiff is asserting the same claims, against 5 the same defendants, arising out of the same events. This action, therefore, is duplicative of the 6 previously filed action. 7 III. Leave to Amend 8 For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s amended complaint should be dismissed. The 9 undersigned has carefully considered whether plaintiff may further amend the complaint to state a 10 claim upon which relief can be granted. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include 11 undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan 12 Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath 13 Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall 14 be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). 15 Here, given the defects noted above, the undersigned finds that granting plaintiff further 16 leave to amend would be futile. 17 CONCLUSION 18 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s June 5, 2020 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be 20 denied; 21 2. Plaintiff’s June 26, 2020 amended complaint (ECF No. 3) be dismissed without leave 22 to amend; and 23 3. This action be dismissed. 24 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days after 26 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 27 the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 28 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 1 | specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 2 | order. See Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 || Dated: October 26, 2020
6 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 | DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.pro se/valdez1144.dism.f&rs
23 24 25 26 27 28