Gumpal v. Queen of the Valley Medical Center et al

Filing 3

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

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?