Turner v. Brady

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 29, 2022
• Docket: 5:22-cv-03630
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CURTIS TURNER, 11 Case No. 22-cv-03630 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 13

14 LAUREL S. BRADY, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 18 Plaintiff, who is currently confined at West County Detention Facility, filed the 19 instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s motion for leave 20 to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted in a separate order. 21 22 DISCUSSION 23 A. Standard of Review 24 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 25 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 26 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 27 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 1 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 2 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 3 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 4 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 5 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 6 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 7 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 8 Plaintiff is asserts that his civil rights are being violated in connection with state 9 criminal proceedings. Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. Plaintiff asserts that his claims involve 10 “ineffective counsel, misconduct, discrimination, court conspiracy, terrorism/torment, 11 attorney malpractice, neglect [and] pain [and] suffering by both courts supreme [and] 12 district.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff names the following as defendants: Judge Laurel S. Brady and 13 District Attorney Angela Lyddan. Id. at 2. Plaintiff seeks damages and for “charges 14 dismissed immediately for court technicality.” Id. at 3. 15 Plaintiff filed a previous action in this district against the same Defendants, among 16 others, making the same allegations as in the instant complaint and seeking damages. The 17 previous action, Turner v. Contra Costa County Supreme Court, et al., Case No. 22-cv- 18 03397 BLF (“Turner I”), was dismissed as several of the named defendants were immune 19 from civil liability and the remaining claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 20 477 (1994). Id., Dkt. No. 14 at 4-5. Two of the defendants in this earlier action included 21 Defendants Brady and Lyddan, who are both immune from civil liability in their respective 22 roles as judge and prosecutor. Id. at 3. 23 Duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject 24 to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious. Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 25 (5th Cir. 1988). An in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or previously 26 litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under § 1915. Cato v. United 1 || pauperis complaint repeating the same factual allegations asserted in an earlier case, even 2 || 1f now filed against new defendants, therefore is subject to dismissal as duplicative. 3 || Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021; Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1975). 4 || “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment 5 || of proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the “comprehensive disposition of 6 || litigation.” Adams v. California, 487 F.3d 684, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), 7 || overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). Here, 8 || Plaintiff's underlying case is duplicative of Turner I because the two suits arise out of the g || same transactional nucleus of facts, i.e., the allegedly unconstitutional conviction or 10 || imprisonment, and defendants in both cases are parties or privies to the action. See Adams, 11 || 487 F.3d at 689. As this case is duplicative of Turner J, the instant action will be 2 dismissed.

S 14 CONCLUSION 3 15 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED as duplicative. The Clerk 16 shall terminate all pending motions, including Docket No. 8, and close the file. 5 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 18 || Dated: _— November 29,2022. ounphacnan BETH LABSON FREEMAN 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 PRO-SEXBLIACR 2203630Turner. dism(duplicative) 26 27