Page v. Adams County Detention et al

Filing 10

ORDER dismissing this action, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 7/23/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 15-cv-01376-GPG
SHARRIECKIA PAGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADAMS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY;
DR. WILLIAMS, Psychologist;
DEPENDENCY AND NEGLECT HUMAN SOCIAL SERVICES; and
DEFENSE ATTORNEY JENNIFER JONES,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Sharrieckia Page, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections who currently is incarcerated at the Denver Women’s
Correctional Facility. Ms. Page initiated this action by filing pro se a Prisoner Complaint
(ECF No. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for money damages and a Prisoner’s Motion
and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 5). Ms.
Page was granted leave to proceed pursuant to the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28
U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 7). Subsection (e)(2)(B) of § 1915 requires a court to dismiss
sua sponte an action at any time if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state claim
upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
The Court must construe Ms. Page’s Complaint liberally because she is not
represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v.

Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). If the complaint reasonably can be read
“to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, [the Court] should do so
despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authority, his [or her] confusion of
various legal theories, his [or her] poor syntax and sentence construction, or his [or her]
unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. However, the Court
does not act as an advocate for a pro se litigant. See id. The Court may take judicial
notice of its own records and files that are part of the Court’s public records. See St.
Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir.
1979).
On July 2, 2015, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher ordered Ms. Page to
show cause why the Complaint and the action should not be dismissed as repetitive of
Civil No. 13-cv-02553-LTB. Magistrate Judge Gallagher warned Plaintiff that 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).

“[G]enerally, a

suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ
between the two actions.” Park v. TD Ameritrade Trust Co., Inc., 461 F. App’x 753, 755
(10th Cir. Feb. 14, 2012) (quoting Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th
Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A duplicative suit may be
dismissed for reasons of “wise judicial administration.” Serlin, 3 F.3d at 223 (quoting
Ridge Gold Standard Liquors v. Joseph E. Seagram, 572 F. Supp. 1210, 1213 (N.D. Ill.
1983) (citing Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800,
817 (1976)); Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2000) (district court
2

may dismiss a suit that is duplicative of another federal court suit); accord Williams v.
Madden, 9 F. App’x 996, 997 & n.1 (10th Cir. June 13, 2001) (stating that the court has
the authority to dismiss “repetitious litigation reasserting virtually identical causes of
action”). The Court may consult its own records to determine whether a pleading
repeats pending or previously litigated claims. See Duhart v. Carlson, 469 F.2d 471
(10th Cir. 1972).
In Civil No. 13-cv-02553-LTB, Ms. Page filed a Prisoner Complaint against
Psychologist Dr. Williams, Adams County Detention Facility, Adams County Department
of Human Social Services, and Public Defender Jennifer Jones for money damages
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That action was dismissed as legally frivolous. In the
instant action, she makes similar allegations against the same Defendants seeking the
same relief.
Ms. Page filed a Letter on July 17, 2015 asking that her action not be dismissed
because she did not understand civil rights actions at the time (ECF No. 9). Such letter
does not suffice to show that this litigation is not repetitive of her earlier filings in this
Court. Therefore, the Complaint and the action will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous or malicious because the instant action is repetitive of Civil

No. 13-cv-02553-LTB.
Finally, the Court certifies pursuant to § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this
order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status will be
denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438
(1962). If Ms. Page files a notice of appeal she also must pay the full $505.00 appellate
filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of
3

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) and the instant action are dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and malicious because the instant
action is repetitive of repetitive of Page v. Williams, Et Al., Civil Action No. 13-cv-02553LTB (D. Colo. Mar. 6, 2014). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied. It is
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

23rd

day of July, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK
Senior Judge, United States District Court

4