Gumpal v. Queen of the Valley Medical Center et al

Filing 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/5/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MAURO GUMPAL,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 17-cv-05597-SI
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 1
QUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL
CENTER, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Mauro Gumpal, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se prisoner’s civil

14

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He complains that he became infected with several

15

illnesses due to the use of contaminated medical instruments at a Napa hospital. He alleges that

16

defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights with their deliberate indifference to his serious

17

medical needs and violated his state law rights.

18

Gumpal’s complaint is now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which

19

requires the court to identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims that are frivolous,

20

malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a

21

defendant who is immune from such relief.

22

The complaint in this action repeats claims made in Gumpal v. Queen of the Valley

23

Medical Center; et al., Case No. 16-cv-6611 SI. The complaints are not just sort of similar: one is

24

a photocopy of the other, with the only difference being the signature date. The claims presented

25

are identical, as are the defendants. The earlier action was dismissed for failure to state a federal

26

claim upon which relief may be granted, and without prejudice to Gumpal pursuing his state law

27

claims in state court. See Case No. 16-cv-6611 SI at Docket No. 10.

28

The complaint in this action is frivolous because it is duplicative of the complaint filed in

2

the earlier action. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey v.

3

Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually

4

identical causes of action is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious); see also

5

Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Plaintiffs

6

generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the

7

same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’”) Having lost in federal court,

8

Gumpal is not free to simply file a new action in federal court presenting the exact same claims

9

again. (As mentioned in the order of dismissal in Case No. 16-cv-6611 SI, Gumpal remains free

10

to pursue his state law claims in state court, but needs to act diligently to do so to avoid potential

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

statute of limitations problems.)

12
13
14
15
16
17

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice because it is frivolous. The clerk
shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 5, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

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