(PS) Spearman v. Towing ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD EDWARD SPEARMAN, Case No. 2:21-cv-01288-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER 13 v. ECF No. 1 14 SAM BERRI TOWING, et al., ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Defendants. ECF Nos. 2, 6 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED 18 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS 19 20 ORDER 21 Plaintiff moves to proceed without prepayment of filing fees, ECF Nos. 2, 6. Plaintiff’s 22 affidavits satisfy the requirements to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(a). Thus, the motions, ECF Nos. 2 & 6, are granted. 24 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25 Having granted plaintiffs’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis, this complaint is now 26 subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must dismiss any action filed in forma 27 pauperis that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 28 1 which seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(e)(2)(B). 3 This is one of nine lawsuits that plaintiff filed in the Eastern District of California in July 4 2021. Spearman v. Department of State Hospitals, 2:21-cv-01213-TLN-KJN (PC) filed 5 07/09/2021; Spearman v. Sam Berri Towing et al, 2:21-cv-01214-WBS-DMC (PC), filed 6 07/09/2021, transferred 01/21/2022 to Fresno under case no. 1:22-cv-00086-SKO (PC); 7 Spearman v. Harris et al, 2:21-cv-01215-KJM-KJN (PC), filed 07/09/2021, closed 12/15/2021; 8 Spearman v. B-Side Bar, 2:21-cv-01216-KJM-DMC (PC), filed 07/09/2021; Spearman v. 9 Sacramento County Recorders Office, 2:21-cv-01217-DMC (PC), filed 07/09/2021; Spearman v. 10 Department of State Hospitals et al, 2:21-cv-01280-KJM-CKD (PC), filed 07/22/2021; Spearman 11 v. Towing et al, 2:21-cv-01288-KJM-JDP (PS), filed 07/22/2021 (the instant case); Spearman v. 12 Sacramento County et al, 2:21-cv-01289-JDP (PC), filed 07/22/2021; Spearman v. Public 13 Defenders Office et al, 2:21-cv-01290-AC (PC), filed 07/22/2021. 14 Plaintiff lists 34 defendants and three claims. ECF No. 1. His first claim is for the theft of 15 his car and jewelry from an estate. Id. at 4. Plaintiff’s second claim is for fraud as to a will and 16 estate associated with plaintiff’s family. Id. at 5. Plaintiff’s third claim references false police 17 reports and taking his cell phone to access bank accounts. Id. at 6. Plaintiff seeks to recover 77 18 million dollars. Id. at 7. 19 Plaintiff’s claims are substantially similar to those asserted in three lawsuits filed on July 20 9, 2021, with many of the same defendants. See Spearman v. Harris et al, 2:21-cv-01215-KJM- 21 KJN (PC), Findings and Recommendations at ECF No. 7 (October 8, 2021) (recommending 22 dismissal without leave to amend), adopted December 15, 2021; Spearman v. Sam Berri Towing 23 et al., 1:22-cv-00086-SKO (PC), Order at ECF No. 12 (dismissing complaint with leave to 24 amend); Spearman v. Sacramento County Recorders Office, 2:21-cv-01217-DMC (PC), 25 Complaint at ECF No. 1 (alleging false granting of deeds from an estate for which plaintiff is a 26 core beneficiary). Duplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are 27 subject to dismissal as either frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See, e.g., Cato v. 28 1 | United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs claims are duplicative of those 2 | asserted in earlier-filed cases, rendering this action frivolous. 3 Accordingly, it is recommended that plaintiff's case be dismissed with prejudice as 4 | frivolous. 5 I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 6 | § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 7 | Eastern District of California. Plaintiffs may, within 14 days of the service of the findings and 8 || recommendations, file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court. 9 | Such objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 10 | Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 28 11 }| U.S.C. § 636(b)1)(C). 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( ie — Dated: _ April 12, 2022 15 JEREMY D. PETERSON 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28