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)

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