Goodwin v. The California Department of Insurance ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DUCHUN LAFRE GOODWIN, Case No. 1:23-cv-00346-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. May 12, 2023, DEADLINE 14 THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE and MELINDA DAVIS, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, Duchin Lafre Goodwin (“Goodwin”), who is proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis initiated this action on March 8, 2023, by filing a form “Complaint for a Civil Case.” 20 (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). Plaintiff’s Complaint is before the Court for screening pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court finds the Complaint essentially duplicative of an earlier 22 action filed by Plaintiff. Thus, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should 23 not recommend the district court dismiss this action as duplicative. 24 I. Screening Requirement 25 Because Plaintiff is proceeding in form pauperis, the Court may dismiss a case “at any 26 time” if the Court determines, inter alia, the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state claim 27 on which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 28 such relief. 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) -(iii); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F. 3d 1122, 1129 1 (9th Cir. 2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all litigants proceeding in form pauperis). Duplicative 2 lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to dismissal as either frivolous or 3 malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See, e.g., Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 4 1995); McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 5 994, 994–95 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). A complaint 6 that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed 7 under § 1915. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. 8 II. Summary of Complaint 9 The Complaint names the following Defendants: (1) The California Department of 10 Insurance; and (2) Melinda Davis, Detective-Investigator Fraud Division. (Id. at 2). Under the 11 “Basis of Jurisdiction” section of the Complaint, Plaintiff checks neither of the boxes which 12 enable a plaintiff to choose either “federal question” or “diversity” jurisdiction. (Id. at 3). When 13 requested to list the “Basis for Jurisdiction” if a jurisdiction is predicated upon a “Federal 14 Question,” Plaintiff states: “Sections 102 and 103 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.” (Id. at 4). 15 Under the “Statement of Claim” section, Plaintiff complains that he has been subjected to 16 intentional discrimination. To the extent discernable, Plaintiff complained to Defendant Davis 17 that Liza Pedrosa failed to answer or return his telephone calls. In the “Relief” section, Plaintiff 18 does not specify any relief, stating only “mentally [sic] agony stress loss of since [sic] of self.” 19 (Id. 6). 20 III. Analysis 21 The Court may take judicial notice of its own pleadings. United States ex. Rel. Robinson 22 Rancheria Citizens Counsel v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cri. 1992). Plaintiff filed a 23 nearly identical action naming, inter alia, the Defendant the California Department of Insurance, 24 as well as Liza Pedrosa in Goodwin v. The California Department of Insurance, Case No. 1:23- 25 cv-00259-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal. 2023).1 The complaint in Plaintiff’s earlier action alleged 26 intentional discrimination and violations of Sections 102 and 103 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 27 1 The Court screened the complaint in Plaintiff’s his earlier action and afforded him an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Thus, Plaintiff may include Melinda Davis as a defendant in his earlier filed action since the 28 claims appear related. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. 1 | Ifthe same cause of action and the same interests typify the two actions, dismissal based on an 2 | action's duplication is merited, whether the reason be deemed a complaint's frivolity or its 3 | maliciousness, even though pro se filing are to be liberally construed. See Patel v. Prince, 276 F. 4 | App'’x 531, 532 (8th Cir.2008). 5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 6 1. On or before May 12, 2023, Plaintiff shall show cause why the Court should not 7 | dismiss the instant action as duplicative of Plaintiffs earlier filed action at Goodwin v. The 8 | California Department of Insurance, Case No. 1:23-cv-00259-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal. 2023). In the 9 | alternative, Plaintiff may file a Notice to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice under 10 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. 11 2. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Court Order or seek an extension of 12 || time to comply, the Court will recommend the district court dismiss this action as duplicative of 13 | Plaintiffs earlier filed action. 14 ' | Dated: _ April 21, 2023 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth 16 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28