Gonzales v. Garcia et al

Filing 7

ORDER Dismissing Action as Duplicative, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/21/12. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ALBERTO GONZALES,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES HARTLEY, et al.,

13

Defendants.

) 1:12-cv-01044 GSA PC
)
) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
) AS DUPLICATIVE
)
)
)
)
)
)

14
15
16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to

18

28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

19

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

20

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

21

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

22

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

23

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

24

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

25

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

26

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

27

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

28

Rehabilitation at Avenal State Prison, brings this civil rights action against correctional officials
1

1

employed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at Avenal. In this action, Plaintiff

2

sets forth allegations of inadequate medical care. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he is 85% blind,

3

has vision problems, and has been denied rigid contact lenses that have been prescribed. Plaintiff

4

makes the exact same allegations in Gonzales v. Avenal State Prison, et al., 1:11 cv 1212 DLB PC,

5

filed on July 22, 2011. This action was filed on June 27, 2012. A review of the complaint in this

6

action reveals that the allegations are identical to those set forth in the earlier action.

7
8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed, without prejudice, as
duplicative of the earlier action. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

9
10
11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

September 21, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2