Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00314/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00314-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 N:\MJJ\Week of 7.16.07\davis4.dup.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLYDE KENNETH DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

N. GRANNIS, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0314 MJJ (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 2)

Plaintiff, a California prisoner, California, filed this pro se civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Sergeant Navarro, a guard at

Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) and “various correctional staff” confiscated and

destroyed papers he needed to pursue litigation he had pending in the Eastern District of

California. 

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer, or employee of a governmental entity. 

See 28 U.S.C § 1915A(a). This court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss

any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

at§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The claims plaintiff raises in the instant action were raised in an earlier action he

Case 3:07-cv-00314-MJJ Document 4 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

A third case filed by plaintiff filed by plaintiff is also duplicative of the instant action,

see Davis v. Grannis, et al., No. 07-0154 MJJ (PR). 

N:\MJJ\Week of 7.16.07\davis4.dup.wpd 2

filed in the Eastern District of California, which has since been transferred to this court and

is currently pending. See Davis v. Grannis, et al., No. C 06-4560 MJJ (PR).1

 Duplicative

or repetitious litigation of the same causes of action brought by prisoners seeking leave to

proceed in forma pauperis is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as malicious. 

See Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). Similarly, an in forma

pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be

considered abusive and dismissed under the authority of § 1915. See Cato v. United

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. In this action,

plaintiff has for a second time brought the same claims, against the same defendants,

regarding their alleged destruction of papers relating to his habeas action in the Eastern

District of California. Because this action is duplicative of plaintiff’s earlier case, this

action is hereby DISMISSED. 

In light of this dismissal, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and no fee

is due. 

This order terminates docket number 2 and any other pending motions.

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

_____________________________

MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00314-MJJ Document 4 Filed 07/17/07 Page 2 of 2