Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00190/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00190-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

17-cv-00190-JAH-NLS 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBEY HAIRSTON, 

CDCR #C-95215, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

SUPERIOR COURT OF 

BAKERSFIELD, et. al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 17-cv-00190-JAH-NLS 

1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) 

AND 

2) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS MOOT [ECF Doc. No. 2] 

Robey Hairston (“Plaintiff”), currently housed at the Atascadero State Hospital 

located in Atascadero, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, on January 30, 2017. See Compl. at 1, ECF Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff did not 

prepay the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing; instead 

he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a) (ECF Doc. No. 2). 

I. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)

 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the 

Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who 

Case 3:17-cv-00190-JAH-NLS Document 3 Filed 03/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

17-cv-00190-JAH-NLS 

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

is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or 

the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” 

“as soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays 

filing fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Pursuant to this 

provision of the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints which “seek[] 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a government entity,” and to 

dismiss those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 

443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). 

“The purpose of § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need 

not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 

2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 

2012)). 

 Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1) because it is duplicative of another civil action he is already litigating 

before a different Court. See Hairston v. Superior Court of Bakersfield, et al., E.D. Cal. 

Civil Case No. 1:17-cv-00220-DAD-JLT (Compl., ECF Doc. No. 1). A court “‘may take 

notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, 

if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 

F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

 A prisoner’s complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it 

“merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 

1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and 

internal quotations omitted). Because Plaintiff is already litigating the identical claims 

presented in the instant action against the same defendants in Hairston v. Superior Court 

of Bakersfield, et al., E.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 1:17-cv-00220-DAD-JLT, the Court must 

Case 3:17-cv-00190-JAH-NLS Document 3 Filed 03/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

17-cv-00190-JAH-NLS 

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

dismiss this duplicative and subsequently filed civil case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1). See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1; see also 

Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688–89 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n 

assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the 

causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the 

same.”), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). 

II. Conclusion and Order

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action, 

Hairston v. Superior Court of Bakersfield, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-00190-

JAH-NLS, is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (ECF Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot and that this dismissal shall operate 

without prejudice to Plaintiff’s pursuit of the same claims against the same parties which 

are currently pending before this Court in Hairston v. Superior Court of Bakersfield, et 

al., E.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 1:17-cv-00220-DAD-JLT. 

 The Clerk shall close the file. 

Dated: March 21, 2017 ________________________________________ 

 HONORABLE JOHN A. HOUSTON

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00190-JAH-NLS Document 3 Filed 03/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3