Young v. Bureau of Prisons

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing this action with prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 7/22/14. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01998-BNB
TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOP,
Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Timothy Doyle Young, a federal prisoner currently housed in the State of
Colorado, originally filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Northern District of California). See Young v. BOP, No.
12-cv-03313-THE (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2012). In an order entered on the docket in Case
No. 12-cv-03313-THE, the Northern District of California determined that venue in Case
No. 12-cv-03313-THE lies in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
and ordered the action transferred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1406(a). See id. at ECF No. 6.

This Court did not receive electronic notification of the transferred case and was
not aware of the transferred case until recently when the Northern District of California
sent a copy to this Court of a pleading Plaintiff filed with the Northern District of
California in Case No. 12-cv-03313-THE, on June 23, 2014. Subsequently, this Court
contacted the Northern District of California and informed the court of its failure to
electronically notify this Court of the transferred case. On July 18, 2014, this Court

received the transfer order and related filings from the Northern District of California and
opened this case.
As part of this Court’s review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(b), this Court has
determined that the submitted documents are deficient. The Court, however, will refrain
from directing Plaintiff to cure any deficiencies and will dismiss the case for the following
reasons.
Plaintiff filed a second civil complaint in the Northern District of California, Young
v. BOP, No. 12-cv-04575-SBA (N. D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2012), within six weeks after he
filed Case No. 12-cv-03313-THE, that also was ordered transferred to this Court on the
same day as Case No. 12-cv-03313-THE. The Court has compared the complaints in
both cases and finds Plaintiff’s claims in Case No. 12-cv-3313-THE are repetitive of the
claims stated in Case No. 12-cv-04575-SBA. Repetitious litigation of virtually identical
causes of action may be dismissed as frivolous or malicious. See Bailey v. Johnson,
846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366,
368 (8th Cir. 1975) (per curiam). This Court addressed Plaintiff’s claims in this Court in
Case No. 12-cv-02456, but dismissed the action because Plaintiff, like he has done in
multiple previous cases, failed to cure certain deficiencies. Plaintiff repeatedly claims
prison staff will not provide him with Court-approved forms for filing his claims in this
Court. Plaintiff’s claims, however, have been found to be incredible and abusive.
Young v. United States, No. 14-cv-00073-LTB, ECF No. 20 (D. Colo. Apr. 22, 2014).
Plaintiff, therefore, had the opportunity to proceed with his claims in Case No. 12-cv02456 in this Court but elected not to do so.
Because this action is repetitive of Case No. 12-cv-02456, and was subject to
2

dismissal as frivolous when it should have been transferred to this Court in September
2012, the Court will now dismiss this action as repetitive and legally frivolous.
The Court acknowledges the order in Young v. United States, No. 14-cv-00073LTB, ECF No. 24 (D. Colo. Apr. 22, 2014), that imposes filing restrictions on Plaintiff.
Because the order imposing restrictions was entered after this case was filed, the Court
will refrain from addressing filing restrictions and monetary sanctions.
The Court also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this Order is not taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is denied for the
purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If Plaintiff
files a notice of appeal he must pay the full $505.00 appellate filing fee or file a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis in the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) as legally frivolous. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

22nd day of

July

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3