Humes v. Sac Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 16

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 7/30/2018 ORDERING Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to this case and RECOMMENDING plaintiff's pending motions (ECF Nos. 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , and 14 ) be denied as moot and this action be dismissed. Assigned and referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JON HUMES,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:18-cv-0888 DB P
Plaintiff,

v.
SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S DEPT., et
al.,

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff is a county prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

20

1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

21

636(b)(1). Before the court are plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his complaint

22

for screening. Because the court finds plaintiff’s claims duplicative of his claims raised in a

23

previously-filed suit in this court, the undersigned will recommend that plaintiff’s pending

24

motions be denied and this action be dismissed.

25
26

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

27

governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. §

28

1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims
1

1

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

2

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28

3

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).

4

Plaintiff identifies the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department and the Sacramento

5

County Superior Court as defendants in this action. Plaintiff asserts multiple, nearly identical

6

claims in which he alleges he has been defamed in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights

7

by defendants’ “reporting” or “posting” that he was arrested for failure to register as a sex

8

offender. (Comp. (ECF No. 1).) Plaintiff filed this action on April 11, 2018. In the six months

9

prior to that date, court records show that plaintiff filed over 35 other civil rights actions in this

10

court. The court has reviewed some of those filings and finds plaintiff’s claims alleged in this

11

case are duplicative of claims he made in a case filed just two days prior to the present one. See

12

Humes v. Sacramento County, No. 2:18-cv-0861 EFB P (E.D. Cal. filed Apr. 9, 2018) (plaintiff

13

sues Sacramento County and Sacramento County Superior Court for “defamation” under the

14

Fourteenth Amendment based on false reporting that he failed to register as a sex offender).

15

Plaintiff may not seek relief on the same claims in two different actions.

16

Plaintiff has also filed multiple motions. In most, he seeks an order requiring the

17

Sacramento County Jail to provide documentation for plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

18

pauperis. Because this court recommends dismissal of this action, these motions should be

19

denied as moot.

20
21
22
23
24

Accordingly, and good cause appearing, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to
assign a district judge to this case; and
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s pending motions (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6, 9,
10, 11, 12 and 14) be denied as moot and this action be dismissed.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

25

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

26

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

27

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

28

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
2

1

time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

2

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

Dated: July 30, 2018

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/hume0888.scrn fr

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3