Walker v. Collins

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 21, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-08902
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JEFFERY WALKER, Case No. 24-cv-08902 EJD (PR) 7 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 8 v. 9 COLLINS, et al., 10 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a civil detainee at the San Francisco County Jail (“CJ2”), filed the instant 14 pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers and medical staff at 15 CJ2. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be 16 addressed in a separate order. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A. Standard of Review 19 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 20 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 21 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 22 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 23 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 24 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 25 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 26 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 27 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 1 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 2 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 3 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 4 Plaintiff is a civil detainee on a commitment hold at CJ2. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1. Plaintiff 5 asserts his constitutional right to be housed in non-punitive conditions has been violated 6 under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. He seeks injunctive relief and damages under the 7 Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Id. 8 Plaintiff specifically alleges that since October 27, 2021, he wrote grievances to 9 Defendants Sheriff Miyamoto, Chief Adams, Captain Collins, and Undersheriff Johnson 10 claiming that his housing in E-pod general population amounted to punitive conditions. Id. 11 ¶ 15. He claims that he was hospitalized at San Francisco General Hospital for chest pain 12 and anxiety attacks, and that he had no access to the gym or recreation for months. Id. ¶¶ 13 11-18. Then at some time in October 2024, he was attacked by Inmate “R” after 14 Defendant Deputy Perez opened the gate to adseg. Id. ¶¶ 20-22. Inmate “R” rushed 15 through the gate, slipped on water, and then continued to run at Plaintiff and attacked him. 16 Id. ¶ 25. An altercation took place between Plaintiff and Inmate “R”, during which 17 Plaintiff injured his neck, back, and right arm. Id. ¶¶ 26-28. Plaintiff claims Defendant 18 Dr. Asa failed to provide adequate treatment for his injuries. Id. ¶ 34. 19 Plaintiff made identical allegations and claims against the same defendants in a 20 separate lawsuit, Walker v. Sgt. Ibarra, et al., Case No. 24-cv-08900 EJD (PR), Dkt. 1 21 (“Walker I”). That complaint was dismissed with leave to amend to correct various 22 deficiencies. Id., Dkt. No. 8. 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 27 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. An in forma 1 || 1f now filed against new defendants, therefore 1s subject to dismissal as duplicative. 2 || Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021; Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1975). 3 || “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment 4 || of proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the “comprehensive disposition of 5 litigation.” Adams v. California, 487 F.3d 684, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), 6 || overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). Here, 7 || Plaintiff's case is duplicative of Walker I because the two suits arise out of the same 8 || transactional nucleus of facts, 1.¢., the punitive housing conditions at CJ2, the attack by 9 || another inmate, and inadequate medical treatment. Compare Dkt. No. | at 7-9 with 10 || Duckett I, Dkt. No. 1 at 7-9. As this case is duplicative of Walker I, the instant action will 11 || be dismissed. CONCLUSION 13 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED as duplicative. 14 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. ) ( ( ) 16 Dated: May 21, 2025 EDWARD J. DAVILA M United States District Judge Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28