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 RIGOBERTO SALIDO, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00561-JES-BLM
CDCR #AY-0083,
12
ORDER: (1) DISMISSING CIVIL
Plaintiff,
13 ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE
vs. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
14
§ 1915A(b)(1) AND (2) DENYING
JAMES HILL;
15 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
STEVEN STALLINGS;
PROCEED IN FORMA
16 DOES 1‒10,
PAUPERIS AS MOOT
17 Defendants.
[ECF No. 2]
18
19 Plaintiff Rigoberto Salido, currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan
20 Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights
21 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, via U.S. Mail on March 7, 2025, together with a
22 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (See ECF
23 Nos. 1, 2.) Because Plaintiff e-filed an identical Complaint against the same Defendants in
24 a separate civil rights action just one week before, the Court dismisses this second case
25 without prejudice as duplicative of the first and denies Plaintiff’s IFP motion in this case
26 as moot.
27 SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
28 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the
1 Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who
2 is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the
3 terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as
4 soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays filing
5 fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Pursuant to this provision of
6 the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints which “seek[] redress from
7 a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” and to dismiss
8 those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim
9 upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief from a defendant who
10 is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1)-(2); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446‒47
11 (9th Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). “The purpose
12 of § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the
13 expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014)
14 (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).
15 Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
16 § 1915A(b)(1) because it is identical to another civil action he submitted to prison officials
17 at RJD for e-filing with the Clerk of the Court pursuant to S. D. Cal. General Order 653A
18 on February 28, 2025. See Salido v. Hill, et al., S.D. Cal. Case No. 3:25-cv-00502-AJB-
19 MMP (“Salido I”). A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within
20 and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to
21 matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett
22 v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). The Complaints in both cases
23 are merely photocopies of each other. Both suits name the same Defendants, allege the
24 same causes of action, request the same relief, and are signed by Plaintiff on the same
25 day—February 26, 2025. (Compare ECF No. 1, with Salido I, Compl., ECF No. 1.)
26 A prisoner’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
27 § 1915A(b)(1) if it “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United
28 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d))
1 || (citation omitted). “[I]n assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, [the
2 ||court must] examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties
3 || or privies to the action, are the same.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684,
4 |1689 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904
5 ||(2008). Because the same claims presented in the instant action against the same
6 ||Defendants are currently pending before Judge Battaglia in Salido I, and nothing in the
7 ||record of either case suggests Plaintiff intended to commence two separate identical civil
8 || actions, this subsequently-filed case may not concurrently proceed. See Cato, 70 F.3d at
9 || 1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1.
10 CONCLUSION
11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED as
12 duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In
13 || Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot. The dismissal of this case shall operate
14 || without prejudice to Plaintiff's pursuit of his claims in S.D. Cal. Case No. 3:25-cv-00502-
15 || AJB-MMP, and shall not be counted as a future “strike” against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
16 1915(g). Plaintiff is advised that any and all future pleadings related to Plaintiff's claims
17 against the named Defendants and submitted for consideration by the Court must include
18 Cal. Case No. 3:25-cv-00502-AJB-MMP clearly in the caption to avoid further
19 ||confusion. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter a judgment of dismissal in S.D.
20 || Cal. Case No. 3:25-cv-00561-JES-BLM and close the file.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
33 Dated: March 27, 2025 “| ap SF mecars
24 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr.
5 United States District Judge
26
27
28