Pittman v. Rees et al

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 18, 2022. (dts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RANDY DEWAYNE PITTMAN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 22-cv-07143-JSW
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
ROBERT DAVID REES, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Santa Rita County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights action

13

against the United States Attorney General, several Assistant United States Attorneys, and

14

officials in the United States Marshal’s Service and Bureau of Prisons seeking placement in the

15

federal witness protection program. This complaint is duplicative of the allegations and request

16

for relief in a motion now pending in another civil rights action in which Plaintiff seeks placement

17

in a federal witness protection program. See Pittman v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.,

18

No. C 22-3806 VKD (PR) (ECF No. 20).

19

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

20

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §

21

1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

22

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

23

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1). As the

24

complaint repeats claims that are pending in another case, even though brought against different

25

defendants, it be considered frivolous and dismissed. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,

26

1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (a complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims

27

may be considered abusive and dismissed); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.

28

1988) (same, even if the latter complaint is brought against different defendants); Van Meter v.

1

Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1975); Ballentine v. Crawford, 563 F. Supp. 627, 629 (N.D.

2

Ind. 1983).

3
4
5
6

Accordingly, the instant action is DISMISSED under Section 1915A(a). The Clerk shall
enter judgment and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2022

7
8
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2