The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 IVAN GOODLOW, JR., Case No.: 3:26-cv-1259-RBM-LR
CDCR# AX-3970,
12
ORDER:
Plaintiff,
13
vs. (1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION AS
14
DUPLICATIVE PURSUANT TO 28
MR. VALDEZ,
15 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) AND
Defendant.
16
(2) DENYING MOTION TO
17 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AS MOOT [Doc. 2]
18
19
20 Plaintiff Ivan Goodlow (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a
21 civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a motion to proceed in
22 forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Docs. 1, 2.) Because Plaintiff has raised the same claim against
23 the same Defendant in a prior civil rights action that is still pending in S.D. Cal. Civil Case
24 No. 3:26-cv-1008-JES-MMP, the Court dismisses this case as duplicative and frivolous,
25 and denies the IFP motion as moot.
26 I. SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
27 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the
28 Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who
1 is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the
2 terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as
3 soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays filing
4 fees or moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c).
5 Pursuant to this provision of the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints
6 which “seek[] redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
7 entity,” and to dismiss those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or
8 fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief
9 from a defendant who is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1)–(2); Resnick v. Hayes,
10 213 F.3d 443, 446–47 (9th Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir.
11 2011). “The purpose of § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious
12 suits need not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907
13 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681
14 (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 duplicative of another civil action Plaintiff previously filed on
17 February 9, 2026 and is currently pending in this Court. See Goodlow v. Valdez, S.D. Cal.
18 Civil Case No. 3:26-cv-1008-JES-MMP (“Goodlow I”). A court “‘may take notice of
19 proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those
20 proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212,
21 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir.
22 2002)).
23 In Goodlow I, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Valdez used excessive force against him
24 on March 6, 2025. See Goodlow I, Doc. 1 at 3. On May 16, 2026, the Court granted
25 Plaintiff’s IFP motion in Goodlow I and directed U.S. Marshal service of the complaint.
26 Goodlow I, Doc. 5. A summons issued the same day. Goodlow I, Doc. 6.
27 On February 23, 2026, two weeks after filing his complaint in Goodlow I, Plaintiff
28 initiated this case (“Goodlow II”) by filing another complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
1 alleging Defendant Valdez used excessive force against him on March 6, 2026. (Doc. 1.)
2 The facts alleged in this case are nearly identical to those alleged in Goodlow I.
3 As pleaded, the Court finds Plaintiff’s claim in the instant case, Goodlow II, are
4 duplicative of the claim alleged in Goodlow I. The two cases contain the same allegations,
5 against the same defendant. Compare Goodlow I, Case No. 3:26-cv-1008-JES-MMP, Doc.
6 1 at 3, with Goodlow II, Case No. 3:26-cv-1259-RBM-LR, Doc. 1 at 3. A prisoner’s
7 complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it “merely repeats
8 pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th
9 Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and internal quotations
10 omitted). Thus, the Court finds the instant action to be duplicative of Goodlow v. Valdez,
11 et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:26-cv-1008-JES-MMP. As such, dismissal of this
12 duplicative and subsequently filed civil case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) is
13 warranted. See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1; see also Adams v.
14 Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n assessing whether
15 the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and
16 relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.”), overruled on
17 other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). As noted above, on May
18 26, 2026, the Court directed U.S. Marshal service of the complaint in Goodlow I. Thus, to
19 proceed with his claim, he may do so as directed by the Court in Goodlow I, 3:26-cv-1008-
20 JES-MMP, Docs. 5–6.
21 Accordingly, because the Court finds this case, Goodlow II, Case No. 3:26-cv-1259-
22 RBM-LR to be duplicative of Goodlow I, it is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.
23 § 1915A(b)(1).
24 II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
25 Good cause appearing, the Court:
26 (1) DISMISSES this civil action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
27 § 1915A(b)(1).
28 (2) DENIES the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) as moot.
1 (3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to
2 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
3 (4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter a judgment of dismissal in this case,
4 ||S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:26-cv-1259-RBM-LR, and to close the file.
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 Dated: May 29, 2026 FR a ? l >
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VAL .. 1DENDDVATD