The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 GREGORY LEON SPATCHER, Case No.: 3:20-CV-1554 JLS (WVG)
CDCR #BJ-9222,
12
ORDER: (1) DISMISSING CIVIL
Plaintiff,
13 ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
vs. § 1915A(b)(1); AND (2) DENYING
14
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
15 PAUPERIS AS MOOT
CITY OF OCEANSIDE; OFFICER
16
BEATRIZ GONZALES; OFFICER
17 JEFFREY BRANDT,
18 Defendants.
19
20
21
22 Plaintiff Gregory Leon Spatcher, currently incarcerated at the California Institution
23 for Men (“CIM”) in Chino, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights
24 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not prepay
25 the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when he filed his Complaint; instead,
26 he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)
27 (ECF No. 2).
28 / / /
1 I. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
2 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the
3 Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who
4 is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the
5 terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as
6 soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays filing
7 fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Pursuant to this provision
8 of the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints which “seek[] redress
9 from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a government entity,” and to dismiss
10 those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim
11 upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief from a defendant who
12 is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446–47 (9th
13 Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). “The purpose of
14 § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the
15 expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014)
16 (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).
17 Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
18 § 1915A(b)(1) because it is duplicative of another civil action he has filed in this Court.
19 See Spatcher v. Baird, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:19-cv-01936-BAS-MSB
20 (“Spatcher I”). A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and
21 without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at
22 issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v.
23 Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). The factual allegations in both
24 matters are nearly identical and name the same Defendants. Thus, the Court finds that
25 Plaintiff’s present Complaint is duplicative of the pleadings he filed in Spatcher I.
26 A prisoner’s complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it
27 “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d
28 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and
1 |/internal quotations omitted). Because Plaintiff has already brought the same claims
2 || presented in the instant action against the same defendants in Spatcher I, the Court must
3 || dismiss this duplicative action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Cato, 70 F.3d at
4 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1; see also Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487
5 || F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n assessing whether the second action is duplicative
6 || of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties
7 || or privies to the action, are the same.”), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell,
8 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).
9 Conclusion and Order
10 After review, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED
11 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Plaintiffs
12 || Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall
13 close the file.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15 ||Dated: August 26, 2020 . tt
16 jen Janis L. Sammartino
7 United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28