construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)
How later courts described this case
- construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 TEDDY LEROY WILSON, Jr., Case No.: 23-cv-344-MMA (BLM)
Booking No. 23700343,
12
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL
Plaintiff,
13 ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE
vs. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
14
§ 1915A(b)(1)
15
CDCR, Employees, Workers, Staff,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21 Teddy LeRoy Wilson, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), currently housed at the Vista Detention
22 Facility located in Vista, California and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action
23 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 17, 2023. See Doc. No. 1 (“Compl.”).
24 I. SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
25 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the
26 Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who
27 is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or
28 the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,”
1 “as soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays
2 filing fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Pursuant to this
3 provision of the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints which “seek[]
4 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a government entity,” and to
5 dismiss those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a
6 claim upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief from a
7 defendant who is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d
8 443, 446–47 (9th Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011).
9 “The purpose of § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need
10 not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th
11 Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir.
12 2012)).
13 Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
14 § 1915A(b)(1) because it is identical and duplicative of another civil action he filed in
15 this Court. See Wilson v. Cardenas, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:23-cv-00278-JLS-
16 LR (“Wilson I”). A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within
17 and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to
18 matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting
19 Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)).
20 In Wilson I, Plaintiff claims that he has been subjected to unconstitutional
21 conditions of his parole and seeks to hold his parole agent and the CDCR liable for
22 allegedly imposing unconstitutional parole conditions. See generally, Wilson I, Doc.
23 No. 1 at 4–22. While Wilson I remained pending before District Judge Sammartino,
24 Plaintiff filed a new Complaint with the Clerk of the Court. The subsequent Complaint
25 was assigned to this Court as Wilson v. CDCR, Civil Case No. 3:23-cv-0344-MMA-BLM
26 (“Wilson II”), and the Court has determined that the two Complaints name the same
27 Defendant, allege the same causes of action, request the same relief, and are signed by the
28 same Plaintiff. Compare Wilson I, Civil Case No. 3:23-cv-00278-JLS-LR, Doc. No. 1,
1 || with Wilson IT, Civil Case No. 3:23-cv-0344-MMA-BLM, Compl.
2 A prisoner’s complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it
3 ““merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d
4 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and
5 || internal quotations omitted). Because Plaintiff has already brought the same claims
6 || presented in the instant action against the same defendant, Defendant CDCR, in Wilson J,
7 ||the Court must dismiss this duplicative and subsequently filed civil case pursuant to 28
8 ||U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1; see
9 Adams y. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n
10 || assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the
11 causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the
12 ||same.’’), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).
13 IIT. CONCLUSION
14 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action is
15 || DISMISSED as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). IT IS FURTHER
16 |} ORDERED that the dismissal of this case shall operate without prejudice to Plaintiff's
17 || pursuit of his claims as alleged in Wilson v. Cardenas, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No.
18 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ The Clerk will TERMINATE S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:23-
19 ||cv-0344-MMA-BLM and close the file.
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21 ||Dated: April 11, 2023
22 Mbihul UM -£ pblr
23 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
24 United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
3