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)

Download PDF
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

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?