Williams v. California, State of et al

Filing 22

ORDER Vacating November 12, 2014 19 Order Denying Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP"); Dismissing Action As Frivolous; Denying 18 Motion To Proceed IFP As Moot. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 3/10/15.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JOSHUA DAVID WILLIAMS,
Inmate Booking No. 14732898,

Civil No.
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

vs.

(2) DISMISSING ACTION AS
FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. § 1915A; AND

17

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

(3) DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IFP AS MOOT

19
20

ORDER:
(1) VACATING NOVEMBER 12,
2014 ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS (“IFP”);

16

18

14cv1816 GPC (PCL)

Defendants.

(Doc. No. 18)

21
22
23

Joshua David Williams (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at California Institute

24 for Men located in Chino, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights
25 complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 1). On July 31, 2014,
26 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
27 § 1915(a) (Doc. No. 2). The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion because he failed to file a
28 certified copy of his prison trust account statement as required by 28 U.S.C.
-1-

14cv1816 GPC (PCL)

1 § 1915(a)(2). (ECF No. 3.) The Court permitted Plaintiff to file a renewed Motion and
2 informed him he must comply with the Court’s Order requiring the trust account
3 statement. (ECF No. 3 at 3.)
4

Plaintiff then filed a second Motion to Proceed IFP but, once again, he failed to

5 submit a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement. (ECF No. 4.) Thus, the
6 Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion and informed him that he must file a certified copy of
7 his inmate trust account statement as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
8

Plaintiff has now filed a third Motion to Proceed IFP but he continued to fail to

9 provide the required certified copy of his inmate trust account statement. (ECF No. 18).
10 Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
11 § 1915(a)(2) and this action was dismissed for failing to comply with a Court Order.
12 (ECF No. 19.) However, on the date that this Order was electronically entered, Plaintiff
13 filed a certified statement of his inmate trust account. (ECF No. 21.) Therefore, the
14 Court will VACATE the November 12, 2014 Order and sua sponte screen Plaintiff’s
15 Complaint (“Compl”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
16 I.

Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)

17

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the

18 Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who
19 is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or
20 the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,”
21 “as soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays
22 filing fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). The Court must sua
23 sponte dismiss prisoner complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous,
24 malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
25 1915A(b); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000).
26

Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

27 § 1915A(b)(1) because it is duplicative of a case Plaintiff has already filed. Plaintiff’s
28 Complaint contains identical claims that are found in Williams v. Scripps Hospital, et al.,
-2-

14cv1816 GPC (PCL)

1 S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 14cv1643 AJB (NLS).

A court “may take notice of

2 proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those
3 proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex rel. Robinson
4 Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992).
5

A prisoner’s complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if

6 it “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70
7 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations
8 and internal quotations omitted). Because Plaintiff has already litigated the same claims
9 presented in the instant action in Williams v. Scripps Hospital, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case
10 No. 14cv1643 AJB (NLS), the Court hereby DISMISSES Civil Case No. 14cv1816
11 GPC (PCL) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2;
12 Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1.
13 II.

Conclusion and Order

14

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

(1)

The Court’s November 12, 2014 Order is VACATED; and

16

(2)

Plaintiff’s Complaint in Civil Case No. 14cv1816 GPC (PCL) is

17 DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Plaintiff’s Motion for
18 Leave to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 18) is DENIED as moot.
19

The Clerk shall close the file.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22 DATED: March 10, 2015
23
24

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
-3-

14cv1816 GPC (PCL)