(PC) Spillard v. Costa ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVERETT L. SPILLARD, II, No. 2:20-cv-0705 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COSTA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 19 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 I. Screening Requirement 21 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 22 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 23 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 26 II. Pleading Requirements 27 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 28 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 1 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 2 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 3 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 4 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 5 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 6 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 7 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 8 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 9 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 10 Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 11 this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. 12 Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 13 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 14 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 15 III. Discussion 16 Examination of the complaint and review of the Court’s docket reveals that the pleading 17 filed in this case on April 4, 2020, is identical to, and thus duplicative of, the complaint filed in 18 Spillard v. Costa, 2:20-cv-0702-CKD, on April 3, 2020. “A complaint ‘that merely repeats 19 pending or previously litigated claims’” is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Cato v. 20 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 21 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)). “[A] duplicative action arising from the same series of events and alleging 22 many of the same facts as an earlier suit” may be dismissed as frivolous or malicious under 23 section 1915(e).See Bailey, 846 F.2d at1021.“Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than 24 the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the 25 ‘comprehensive disposition of litigation.’” Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 26 684, 692 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 27 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).To determine whether a claim is duplicative, courts use the test for claim 28 preclusion. Adams, 487 F.3dat 688. “Thus, in assessing whether the second action is duplicative wOAOe 2 OU UY EVP MVOC IO OF eer PAY VM VI 1 | of the first, [courts] examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties 2 || or privies to the action, are the same.” Id. at 689 (citations omitted). “Plaintiffs generally have no 3 | right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the 4 | same court and against the same defendant.” Id. at 688 (internal quotation marks and citations 5 | omitted). 6 In both this action and in Spillard v. Costa, 2:20-cv-0702-CKD, plaintiff raises the same 7 | claims, against the same defendants, arising out of the same events, and infringing upon the same 8 | rights. The complaints are identical, appearing to be photocopies. In addition, the proof of service 9 | in both cases reveals that plaintiff submitted his complaint in both actions for service on March 10 28, 2020. It is unclear why Plaintiff chose to submit two copies of the same complaint. 11 | Presumably, this was a mistake. In any event, the Court finds that this case is duplicative of 12 | Spillard v. Costa, 2:20-cv-0702-CKD. 13 IV. Conclusion 14 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause within 15 || twenty-one days why this action should not be dismissed as duplicative of Spillard v. Costa, 2:20- 16 || cv-0702-CKD. Alternatively, plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal of this case 17 || pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (a). 18 | Dated: August 25, 2020 20 1 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 | /DLB7: DB/Inbox/Substantive/spil0705.osc 23 24 25 26 27 28