# (PS) Reif v. Gray

> District Court, E.D. California · April 2, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10838574

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** April 2, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10838574

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DANIEL JOHN-REIF, Case No. 2:24-cv-1346-DJC-CSK
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 RYAN GRAY, et al., (ECF Nos. 1, 2)
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff Daniel John-Reif is representing himself in this action and seeks leave to
18 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 2.) For the
19 reasons that follow, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and the
20 Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.
21 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that the court may authorize the commencement,
23 prosecution or defense of any suit without prepayment of fees or security “by a person
24 who submits an affidavit stating the person is “unable to pay such fees or give security
25 therefor.” This affidavit is to include, among other things, a statement of all assets the
26 person possesses. Id. The IFP statute does not itself define what constitutes insufficient
27
1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R.
28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c).
1 assets. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). In Escobedo,
2 the Ninth Circuit stated that an affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient
3 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay court costs and still afford the necessities of
4 life. Id. “One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis
5 statute.” Id. Nonetheless, a party seeking IFP status must allege poverty “with some
6 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. According to the United States Department
7 of Health and Human Services, the current poverty guideline for a household of one (not
8 residing in Alaska or Hawaii) is $15,060.00. See U.S. Dpt. Health & Human Service
9 (available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines).
10 Here, Plaintiff’s IFP application does make the financial showing required by
11 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 2. However, the Court will recommend Plaintiff’s IFP
12 application be denied because the action is facially frivolous and without merit because it
13 is duplicative of an earlier pending action in this district. “‘A district court may deny leave
14 to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed
15 complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d
16 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370
17 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Dep’t of Child Support Servs., 584 Fed. App’x. 638
18 (9th Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee's
19 request to proceed IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that
20 McGee's action is frivolous or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th
21 Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court to examine any application for leave to
22 proceed in forma pauperis to determine whether the proposed proceeding has merit and
23 if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is bound to deny a motion
24 seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). Because it appears from the face of
25 Plaintiff’s Complaint that this action is frivolous and is without merit as discussed in more
26 detail below, the Court recommends denying Plaintiff’s IFP motion.
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
2 Even if the Court were to grant Plaintiff’s IFP application, Plaintiff’s Complaint
3 warrants dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)’s required pre-answer screening.
4 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis
5 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to
6 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a
7 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith,
8 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an
9 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In
10 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual
11 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and
12 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id. at 326-27;
13 Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir.
14 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
15 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
16 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post-Iqbal).
17 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable
18 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d
19 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does
20 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007);
21 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
22 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough
23 facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A
24 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
25 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
26 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the
27 complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be
28 cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80
1 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).
2 III. THE COMPLAINT
3 Plaintiff’s Complaint names Defendants “Ryan Gray” a “California state parks and
4 recreation officer”; “Todd Jones” a “California state parks and officer, Sargent”; “Sabrina
5 Buis” a “California State Parks and Recreation Officer”; and “Judge Michael Deems” a
6 “Butte county judge for the State of California.” Compl. at 2-3, 7 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff
7 alleges that on “April 5th at 436 PM in the city of Oroville,” Plaintiff was “illegally pulled
8 over by state parks and recreation officer Ryan Gray.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff appears to be
9 alleging that the traffic stop and subsequent detention were unlawful and violated his
10 constitutional rights. Id. at 8-19. Plaintiff further alleges Defendant Judge Michael Deems
11 violated Plaintiff’s due process rights in the adjudication of his state court action that
12 Plaintiff identifies as “23CF02390.” Id. at 19. The Complaint asserts jurisdiction based on
13 federal question and diversity. Id. at 4. As to the basis for federal question jurisdiction,
14 Plaintiff alleges the following statutes at issue:
15 privacy Act of 1974 (Public law 93-579), an amending law to
title 5 U.S.C. per the provisions of 552a. Title 42 U.S.C.,
16 section 14141-pattern and practice. Title 18 U.S.C., sec 2425
federally protected activities. Title 18 U.S.C., sec 241-
17 Conspiracy against rights. Title 18, U.S.C., sec 242-dep of
rights under color of Law.
18
19 Id. For relief, Plaintiff seeks “compensation/restitution/punitive damages, in the amount
20 of, twenty four million five thousand seventy dollars ($24,050,071.00)”. Id. at 23.
21 IV. DISCUSSION
22 A. Duplicative Suits
23 A district court has broad discretion to control its own docket, including the power
24 to dismiss duplicative claims. M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist., 681 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir.
25 2012). “To determine whether a suit is duplicative, we borrow from the test for claim
26 preclusion.” Adams v. California Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir.
27 2007) (overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008)). In
28 assessing whether a suit is duplicative, the court examines whether the causes of action,
1 the relief sought, and the parties or privies to the action, are the same. Id. at 689. To
2 determine whether the causes of action are the same, courts utilize the “transaction test”
3 which requires the application of four factors, the last of which is the most important:
4 (1) whether rights or interests established in the prior
judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of
5 the second action; (2) whether substantially the same
evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether the two
6 suits involve infringement of the same right; and (4) whether
the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of
7 facts.
8 Id. (citing Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1982)).
9 On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff initiated an action in this district court, Daniel John-
10 Reif v. Ryan Gray, et al., 2:24-cv-00968-KJM-JDP (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2024) (“Reif I”),
11 that is ongoing and currently pending IFP screening. In Reif I, Plaintiff names the same
12 Defendants as in this action: “Ryan Gray” a “California state parks and recreation
13 officer”; “Todd Jones” a “California state parks and officer, Sargent”; “Sabrina Buis” a
14 “California State Parks and Recreation Officer”; and “Michael Deems” a “Judge, Butte
15 county California.” Reif I at Compl. at 2 (ECF No. 1). The instant case and Reif I plead
16 identical factual allegations for the unlawful traffic stop that took place “[o]n April 5th at
17 436 PM in the city of Oroville” and subsequent detention that Plaintiff seeks to contest.
18 Compare Compl. at 7-23, with Reif I Compl. at 8-24. The instant Complaint and the Reif I
19 Complaint are identical. Id.
20 Here, all the factors of the transaction test are satisfied. See Costantini, 681 F.2d
21 at 1201-02. In both actions, the parties are identical, and Defendants are the same
22 named defendants as in Reif I. Compare Compl., with Reif I, Compl. Both actions also
23 seek the same relief. See Reif I, Compl at 24 (“I am seeking compensation/restitution/
24 punitive damages, in the amount of, twenty four million five thousand seventy dollars
25 ($24,050,071.00).”). In fact, the complaints in both actions are identical. Compare
26 Compl., with Reif I, Compl. Because both actions arise out of the same incident and
27 involve substantially the same allegations, the cases arise from the same nucleus of fact
28 and consequently involve substantially the same evidence. See Costantini, 681 F.2d at
1 | 1201-02. This action is therefore duplicative of Reif /, an ongoing earlier case in this
2 || district, and should be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lathus, 56 F.4th at 1243.
3 B. Leave to Amend
4 In considering whether leave to amend should be granted, the Court finds that the
5 || Complaint is duplicative of an earlier filed, ongoing lawsuit and leave to amend is not
6 | appropriate. Compare Compl., with Reif ! Compl. If Plaintiff seeks to file an amended
7 | complaint, he should do so in Reif /, his earlier filed case. Because this case is
8 || duplicative of the case pending in Reif I, No. 2:24-cv-00968-KJM-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the
9 | Complaint should therefore be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez, 203 F.3d
10 | at 1130-31; Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995).
11 | V. CONCLUSION
12 Based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED that:
13 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be DENIED;
14 2. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED without leave to amend;
15 and
16 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case.
17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
18 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
19 | 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file
20 | written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should
21 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any
22 | reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14
23 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time
24 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,
25 || 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
26 | Dated: April 2, 2025 CO (yi □ \U
27 CHI S00 KIM
28 | 4 reitis46.24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10838574. Public record. Not legal advice.