Hairston v. Superior Court of Bakersfield et al

Filing 3

ORDER: (1) Dismissing Civil Action as Frivolous Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); and (2) Denying 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as moot. The case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall close the file. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 3/21/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 Case No.: 17-cv-00190-JAH-NLS ROBEY HAIRSTON, CDCR #C-95215, SUPERIOR COURT OF BAKERSFIELD, et. al., 16 AND Defendants. 2) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT [ECF Doc. No. 2] 17 18 19 20 Robey Hairston (“Plaintiff”), currently housed at the Atascadero State Hospital 21 located in Atascadero, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 22 U.S.C. § 1983, on January 30, 2017. See Compl. at 1, ECF Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff did not 23 prepay the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing; instead 24 he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(a) (ECF Doc. No. 2). 26 I. 27 28 Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who 1 17-cv-00190-JAH-NLS 1 is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or 2 the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” 3 “as soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays 4 filing fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Pursuant to this 5 provision of the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints which “seek[] 6 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a government entity,” and to 7 dismiss those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a 8 claim upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief from a 9 defendant who is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 10 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). 11 “The purpose of § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need 12 not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 13 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 14 2012)). 15 Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1915A(b)(1) because it is duplicative of another civil action he is already litigating 17 before a different Court. See Hairston v. Superior Court of Bakersfield, et al., E.D. Cal. 18 Civil Case No. 1:17-cv-00220-DAD-JLT (Compl., ECF Doc. No. 1). A court “‘may take 19 notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, 20 if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 21 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 22 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). 23 A prisoner’s complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it 24 “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 25 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and 26 internal quotations omitted). Because Plaintiff is already litigating the identical claims 27 presented in the instant action against the same defendants in Hairston v. Superior Court 28 of Bakersfield, et al., E.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 1:17-cv-00220-DAD-JLT, the Court must 2 17-cv-00190-JAH-NLS 1 dismiss this duplicative and subsequently filed civil case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915A(b)(1). See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1; see also 3 Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688–89 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n 4 assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the 5 causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the 6 same.”), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). 7 II. Conclusion and Order 8 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action, 9 Hairston v. Superior Court of Bakersfield, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-00190- 10 11 JAH-NLS, is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 12 Pauperis (ECF Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot and that this dismissal shall operate 13 without prejudice to Plaintiff’s pursuit of the same claims against the same parties which 14 are currently pending before this Court in Hairston v. Superior Court of Bakersfield, et 15 al., E.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 1:17-cv-00220-DAD-JLT. 16 The Clerk shall close the file. 17 18 19 20 Dated: March 21, 2017 ________________________________________ HONORABLE JOHN A. HOUSTON United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 17-cv-00190-JAH-NLS

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?