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 ISRAEL ARGUELLO, Case No.: 3:24-cv-01024-JAH-BLM
CDCR #BW-2448,
12
ORDER:
Plaintiff,
13
vs. (1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION
14
AS DUPLICATIVE PURSUANT
15 TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)
JOHN DOE, SDCJ Director;
16
John Doe, SDCJ Floor Officer of Module AND
17 8; J. AGREDANO, SDCJ Sgt.,
18 Defendants. (2) DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
19 AS MOOT
20
[ECF No. 2]
21
22 Israel Arguello (“Plaintiff”), while incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in
23 Susanville, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42
24 U.S.C. § 1983, on June 10, 2024. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not prepay the
25 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when he filed his Complaint; instead, he
26 filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (See
27 ECF No. 2.) On June 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address indicating he
28 has since been transferred to Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, and
1 informing the Court that while he has two cases pending in this Court (24-cv-01024-JAH-
2 BLM) and another (24-cv-00937-AJB-KSC), both cases are “one and the same,” but have
3 been assigned two separate civil case numbers due to his “initial filing being lost.” (See
4 ECF No. 3 at 1.)
5 I. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)
6 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the
7 Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who
8 is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the
9 terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as
10 soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays filing
11 fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Pursuant to this provision
12 of the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints which “seek[] redress
13 from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a government entity,” and to dismiss
14 those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim
15 upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief from a defendant who
16 is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th
17 Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). “The purpose of §
18 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense
19 of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting
20 Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).
21 As Plaintiff admits in his Notice of Change of Address, his Complaint in this case,
22 Arguello v. Doe, et al., Civil Case No. 24-cv-01024-JAH-BLM (“Arguello II”), filed on
23 June 10, 2024, is “one and the same” as the Complaint he previously filed on May 28,
24 2024. (See ECF No. 3 at 1; Arguello v. Doe, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 24-cv-0937-
25 AJB-KSC (ECF No. 1) (“Arguello I”)). That Complaint has not been “lost,” as Plaintiff
26 claims, but instead has been submitted for preliminary screening and IFP consideration
27 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a) by the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia.
28 Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint in this later-filed case is subject to sua sponte dismissal
1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because the two cases are duplicative.
2 A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without
3 the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’”
4 Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc.,
5 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). In Arguello I, Plaintiff claims San Diego County
6 Jail officials acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs and failed to properly
7 accommodate his disability while he was detained there from December 2022 until
8 December 2023. See Arguello I, Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1‒4. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges
9 to have fallen while using a broken shower chair on May 25, 2023, and claims his
10 subsequent grievances requesting more than “perfunctory” medical attention, referral to
11 specialists, and corrective surgery went unanswered. Id. at 4‒6. His Complaint in this
12 case, filed just twelve days later on June 10, 2024, is identical. Cf., Compl., ECF No. 1.
13 In fact, the Complaints in both cases are merely photocopies of each other. Both suits name
14 the same Defendants, allege the same causes of action, request the same relief, and are
15 signed by Plaintiff on the same day—May 21, 2024. See Arguello I, Civil Case No. 3:24-
16 cv-00937-AJB-KSC, Compl., ECF No. 1, cf., Arguello II, Civil Case No. 3:24-cv-01024-
17 JAH-BLM, Compl., ECF No. 1.
18 A prisoner’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
19 § 1915A(b)(1) if it “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United
20 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d))
21 (citations and internal quotations omitted). “[I]n assessing whether the second action is
22 duplicative of the first, [the court must] examine whether the causes of action and relief
23 sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t
24 of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688–89 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by
25 Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). Because the same claims presented in the
26 instant action against the same Defendants are currently pending before Judge Battaglia in
27 Arguello v. Doe, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:24-cv-00937-AJB-KSC, the Complaint
28 filed in this duplicative and subsequently-filed civil action may not concurrently proceed.
| || See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1.
2 Conclusion and Order
3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED
4 || without prejudice as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). IT IS FURTHER
5 ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is
6 || DENIED as moot and that the dismissal of this case shall operate without prejudice to
7 || Plaintiff's pursuit of his claims as currently alleged in Arguello v. Doe, et al., S.D. Cal.
8 || Civil Case No. 3:24-cv-00937-AJB-KSC.
9 Plaintiff is advised that any and all future filings must include Civil Case No. 3:24-
10 || cv-00937-AJB-KSC clearly in the caption to avoid further confusion. The Clerk will
11 || TERMINATE S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:24-cv-01024-JAH-BLM and close the file.
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13 |[Dated: July 2, 2024 M&S
14 JOHN A. HOUSTON
15 J UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 oe