Diu v. Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 JOHN K. D., Case No.: 22cv1193-RBB 14 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 15 v. AS DUPLICATIVE AND DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 16 SOCIAL SECURITY AND ORGANIZER II INC., PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 17 AS MOOT Defendants. 18 19 On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff John D.1, proceeding in pro se, commenced this 20 action against Defendants “Social Security and Organizer II Inc.” for judicial review 21 under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the alleged miscalculation of his disability insurance benefits 22 [ECF No. 1]. At the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave 23 24 25 26 1 The Court refers to Plaintiff using only his first name and last initial pursuant to the Court's Civil Local 27 Rules. See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(e)(6)(b). 1 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) [ECF No. 2]. Plaintiff consented to have this 2 Court conduct all proceedings on September 6, 2022 [ECF No. 6].2 3 For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH 4 PREJUDICE as duplicative, and his Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP is DENIED AS 5 MOOT. 6 I. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 7 A. Standard of Review 8 The Court must screen every in forma pauperis proceeding brought pursuant to 28 9 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 10 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who 11 is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 12 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not 13 limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 14 (noting that “section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in 15 forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim”) (citation omitted). Because John D. 16 is appearing pro se, the Court liberally construes his filings. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 17 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 18 B. Complaint Allegations 19 In his Complaint, John D. alleges that the Social Security Administration has not 20 increased his benefit amount by 6.2 percent annually as required and he is currently owed 21 $6,200 per month as well as “back pay benefits” from 2016 to 2022. (Compl. 2, ECF No. 22 1.) He states that he has called the Social Security office to request the increased benefit 23 payment to no avail. (Id.) He also claims that he filed a “reconsideration hearing before 24 25 2 The United States has informed the Court of its general consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in 26 cases of this nature. See S.D. Cal. Gen. Order No. 707 (Apr. 12, 2019). 27 1 the administrative law [j]udge” in “January,” but provides no further details or 2 documentation of that filing. (See id.) 3 C. Discussion 4 An examination of Plaintiff's complaint in this case and a review of the Court's 5 docket reveals that it is duplicative of the complaint filed in Diu v. Social Security, et al., 6 Case No. 22cv1042-RBB, which was dismissed with prejudice by this Court on 7 September 15, 2022. 8 “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the 9 same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’” 10 Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations 11 omitted), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904, 128 S. Ct. 12 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008). “[A] duplicative action arising from the same series of 13 events and alleging many of the same facts as an earlier suit” may be dismissed as 14 frivolous or malicious under § 1915(e). See Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th 15 Cir. 1988); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (“There 16 is no abuse of discretion where a district court dismisses under [§ 1915(e)] a complaint 17 “that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.”) (citing Bailey, 846 F.2d at 18 1021). “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the 19 enjoinment of proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the ‘comprehensive 20 disposition of litigation.’” Adams, 487 F.3d at 692. To determine whether a claim is 21 duplicative, courts use the test for claim preclusion. Id. at 688. “Thus, in assessing 22 whether the second action is duplicative of the first, [courts] examine whether the causes 23 of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” 24 Id. at 689 (citations omitted). 25 The Court finds that this action is duplicative of Diu v. Social Security, et al., Case 26 No. 22cv1042-RBB. Plaintiff makes the same allegations against the same defendants in 27 1 || both cases. Indeed, the four-page complaints in each case, other than the signature pages, 2 identical. While the exhibits attached to the complaints in each case differ slightly, 3 || the exhibits attached to the complaint in this case are essentially duplicative of those filed 4 ||in the first case. Accordingly, the complaint in this case is DISMISSED WITH 5 || PREJUDICE as duplicative. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 692 (finding dismissal of 6 || duplicative action with prejudice did not constitute an abuse of discretion). 7 Ht. CONCLUSION 8 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH 9 || PREJUDICE as duplicative, and his Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP is DENIED AS 10 MOOT. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: September 21, 2022 ) | 2, 13 Hon. Ruben B. Brooks 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22ev1193-RBB