(PC) Hayes v. Beck ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAWRENCE P. HAYES, No. 2:23-cv-02694-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CHRISTOPHER BECK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 8.1 19 Additionally, the complaint is before the court for screening. 20 I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 22 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 23 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 25 //// 26 //// 27 1 This proceeding was referred to a magistrate judge by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 II. Screening Requirement and Standards 2 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 3 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 5 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 8 This standard is echoed in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires that courts dismiss a 9 case in which a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis at any time if it determines, among other 10 things, that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 11 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” “[The] 12 term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, 13 but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) 14 (discussing the predecessor to modern § 1915(e)(2), former § 1915(d)). Thus, § 1915(e)(2) 15 allows judges to dismiss a claim based on factual allegations that are clearly baseless, such as 16 facts describing “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-38. 17 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 19 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 20 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 21 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 22 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 23 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 24 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 25 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 26 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 27 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 28 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 1 678. 2 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 3 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 4 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 5 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 6 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 7 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 8 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 9 III. Screening Order 10 Plaintiff sues Fairfield City Police Department, Detective Christopher Beck, and Officer 11 Keith Pulsipher over an operation conducted by the department at plaintiff’s residence on April 7, 12 2022 that culminated in plaintiff’s arrest.2 ECF No. 6. Plaintiff asserts a number of claims, all of 13 which arise from that operation and which include claims for false imprisonment and illegal 14 search and seizure. 15 This action must be dismissed because it is duplicative of an earlier-filed, and still 16 pending, case – Lawrence P. Hayes v. Fairfield City Police Department, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:23- 17 cv-02380-DMC (hereinafter “Hayes I”). The court takes judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule 18 of Evidence 201 of plaintiff’s amended complaint in Hayes I, which also names Beck, Pulsipher, 19 and the Fairfield City Police Department as defendants and challenges the April 7, 2022 police 20 action. Hayes I, ECF No. 6. A case pursued by an in forma pauperis litigant may be dismissed as 21 duplicative where it involves the same subject matter and is pursued against the same defendants. 22 Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). “Plaintiffs generally have no right 23 to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same 24 court and against the same defendant. Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 25 (9th Cir. 2007) 26 2 Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 6) and has also filed the 27 proposed amended complaint (ECF No. 5). The motion will be granted, and these findings and recommendations concern the now-operative amended complaint filed on December 22, 2023. 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 1 | IV. Order and Recommendation 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district judge to 3 | this action and that plaintiff's December 22, 2023 motion for leave to file an amended complaint 4 | (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the case be dismissed as 5 || duplicative of Lawrence P. Hayes v. Fairfield City Police Department, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:23- 6 | cv-02380-DMC. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 9 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 12 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 13 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 14 | appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 15 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Hata EBL» 17 || Dated: May 29, 2024 Cott T hie 7 LACK EDMUND F. BRENNAN 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28