Steve Garrison v. Donald Trump, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-07975
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEVE GARRISON, Case No. 25-cv-07975-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. 11

12 Plaintiff, an inmate in Santa Clara County Jail who is proceeding without representation by 13 an attorney, filed this civil complaint with claims against President Donald Trump, the 14 “Blackstone Investment Firm,” and United States District Judge James Donato. (ECF No. 1 at 1- 15 3.) Plaintiff has received leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. 16 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 17 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 18 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 19 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 20 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 21 § 1915A(b). Section 1915(e)(2) provides that the court “shall” dismiss any case brought in forma 22 pauperis “if the court determines” the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon 23 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 24 relief. Section 1915(e)(2) is not limited to prisoners or to suits against governmental defendants. 25 Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001). Pleadings filed by unrepresented parties 26 must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 27 The complaint repeats the same claims and allegations against the same Defendants that 1 For the reasons explained in the order dismissing that case, Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous. See id. 2 (ECF No. 5). Additionally, an in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or 3 previously litigated allegations and claims may be dismissed at the screening stage of 28 U.S.C. § 4 1915. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Bailey v. Johnson, 5 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)). Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED as both frivolous 6 and duplicative. 7 The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: October 28, 2025 10 11 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27