Spatcher v. City of Oceanside ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY LEON SPATCHER, Case No.: 3:20-CV-1554 JLS (WVG) CDCR #BJ-9222, 12 ORDER: (1) DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. vs. § 1915A(b)(1); AND (2) DENYING 14 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 15 PAUPERIS AS MOOT CITY OF OCEANSIDE; OFFICER 16 BEATRIZ GONZALES; OFFICER 17 JEFFREY BRANDT, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff Gregory Leon Spatcher, currently incarcerated at the California Institution 23 for Men (“CIM”) in Chino, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights 24 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not prepay 25 the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when he filed his Complaint; instead, 26 he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 27 (ECF No. 2). 28 / / / 1 I. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 2 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the 3 Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who 4 is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the 5 terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as 6 soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays filing 7 fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Pursuant to this provision 8 of the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints which “seek[] redress 9 from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a government entity,” and to dismiss 10 those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim 11 upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief from a defendant who 12 is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446–47 (9th 13 Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). “The purpose of 14 § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the 15 expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) 16 (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)). 17 Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915A(b)(1) because it is duplicative of another civil action he has filed in this Court. 19 See Spatcher v. Baird, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:19-cv-01936-BAS-MSB 20 (“Spatcher I”). A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and 21 without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at 22 issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. 23 Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). The factual allegations in both 24 matters are nearly identical and name the same Defendants. Thus, the Court finds that 25 Plaintiff’s present Complaint is duplicative of the pleadings he filed in Spatcher I. 26 A prisoner’s complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it 27 “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 28 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and 1 |/internal quotations omitted). Because Plaintiff has already brought the same claims 2 || presented in the instant action against the same defendants in Spatcher I, the Court must 3 || dismiss this duplicative action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Cato, 70 F.3d at 4 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1; see also Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 5 || F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n assessing whether the second action is duplicative 6 || of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties 7 || or privies to the action, are the same.”), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 8 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). 9 Conclusion and Order 10 After review, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED 11 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Plaintiffs 12 || Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall 13 close the file. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 ||Dated: August 26, 2020 . tt 16 jen Janis L. Sammartino 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28