The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 SHAI ALKEBU-LAN, Case No. 21-cv-06249-JST
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY
9 v. CLOSING CASE AS FILED IN ERROR
10 ZACHARY BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.
11
12
13 Plaintiff, an inmate at California Men’s Colony (“CMC”) in San Luis Obispo, California,
14 has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the following reasons, the Court will
15 CLOSE this case as filed in error.
16 DISCUSSION
17 I. Procedural History
18 Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint in the Central District of California
19 on or about July 26, 2021. ECF No. 1. The complaint names as defendants Correctional Training
20 Facility – Soledad (“CTF-Soledad”) correctional officer Zachary Brown, C. Bravo, M. Daguio,
21 and Warden Koenig. In relevant part, the complaint alleges that on June 8, 2017, Plaintiff was
22 raped by, or at the direction of, defendants Brown, Bravo, and Daguio; that on May 13, 2018
23 defendants ordered correctional officers to interfere with Plaintiff’s mail attempting to report this
24 rape to outside authorities; and that the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) commissioners Troy
25 Taira and Nga Lam, and BPH psychologists Hazelwood and Wizniewski have conspired with
26 correctional officials at CMC and CTF-Soledad to prevent him receiving the following COVID-19
27 relief: parole and medical care. Plaintiff requests monetary damages, termination of all parties for
1 record.” See ECF No. 1 at 1-7.
2 On July 29, 2021, Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was granted.
3 ECF No. 5.
4 On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff requested that this action be transferred to this district because
5 the events alleged occurred in this district. ECF No. 8. On August 10, 2021, Plaintiff’s request
6 was granted, and this action was transferred to this district. ECF Nos. 9, 10, 12.
7 While this action was pending, Plaintiff commenced a separate action in this court. On or
8 about August 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed the following action in this court: C No. 21-cv-0603 JST,
9 Alkebu-Lan v. Hazelwood et al. (“Alkebu-Lan I”). In Alkebu-Lan I, he named as defendants Board
10 of Parole Hearing (“BPH”) psychologists Lisa Hazelwood and Emily Wiznewski; BPH
11 commissioners Troy Taira and Nga Lam; Correctional Training Facility Soledad correctional
12 officer Zachary Brown; and California Deputy Attorney General Anthony Tartaglio. ECF No. 1 at
13 2. Alkebu-Lan I challenges the BPH’s 2021 denial of his petition for relief due to COVID-19, and
14 requests monetary damages, that the BPH decision be reviewed, and that the named defendants be
15 terminated for conspiring to conceal exhausted grievances and for manipulating the courts. See
16 ECF No. 1 at 3, 12-13.
17 II. Discussion
18 The Court has reviewed the complaints in both this action and in Alkebu-Lan I. The two
19 actions differ in the following two ways. While the two actions both name Zachary Brown as a
20 defendant, the other named defendants differ. The two actions seek the termination of the
21 defendants named in that action, and Alkebu-Lan I also seeks a review of the 2021 parole denial.
22 However, both actions challenge the same issue, the BPH’s 2021 denial of parole. This action
23 appears to be duplicative of Alkebu-Lan I. Duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually
24 identical causes of action is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious. Bailey v.
25 Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). An in forma pauperis complaint that merely
26 repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under
27 § 1915. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021.
1 presume that one of these actions was filed in error. As this is the action with the higher case
2 || number, the Court administratively CLOSES this action as filed in error.!
3 CONCLUSION
4 For the reasons set forth above, the Court CLOSES this action as filed in error. The Clerk
5 of the Court shall CLOSE this action.
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 || Dated: November 22, 2021 .
8 JON S. TIGA
9 nited States District Judge
10
11
12
©
15
16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 ' If Plaintiff believes the Court has erred in finding that this action was filed in error, he may file a
26 || motion to reopen this case. Any motion to reopen must address whether this action is duplicative
or repetitive. The Court notes that it appears that Plaintiff may not be eligible for in forma
07 pauperis status pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Alkebu-Lan v. Kane, et al., Case No. 06-5991
CW, “Order of Dismissal” (Aug. 25, 2009, ECF No. 17). Should this case be reopened and
28 allowed to proceed, Plaintiff would need to address whether his in forma pauperis status should be
revoked.