Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02994/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02994-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK L. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JERRY BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2994 GEB DAD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff Roderick Mitchell is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to 

the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff 

has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis 

status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that 

the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th 

Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)). See

also Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court to 

examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine whether the 

proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is 

Case 2:14-cv-02994-GEB-DB Document 3 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 4
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

2

bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). 

Moreover, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of 

poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 

state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune 

defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an 

arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a 

complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the 

factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as 

true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. 

Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 

(9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 

lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true 

conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western 

Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a 

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s 

jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand 

for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.

FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a).

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:14-cv-02994-GEB-DB Document 3 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Here, the court’s records reveal that the complaint filed in this action is identical to the 

complaint plaintiff has filed in the matter of Roderick L. Mitchell v. Jerry Brown, et al., No. 2:14-

cv-2993 MCE AC, which is currently pending in this court and is at later stage in the proceedings

than this action.

1

 Duplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are 

subject to dismissal as either frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See, e.g., Cato v. 

United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1995); McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 

573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir.1993); Bailey v. 

Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). An in forma pauperis complaint that merely 

repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under § 

1915. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n. 2; Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. Repeating the same factual 

allegations asserted in an earlier case, even if now filed against new defendants, is subject to 

dismissal as duplicative. See, e.g., Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021; Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 

366, 368 (8th Cir. 1975). “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a 

stay or the enjoinment of proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the comprehensive 

disposition of litigation.” Adams v. California, 487 F.3d 684, 688, 692 (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.” (Id. at 689.)

Here, plaintiff’s complaint in this action raises the same allegations as those made against 

the same defendant and is seeking the same relief as that sought in Roderick L. Mitchell v. Jerry 

Brown, et al., No. 2:14-cv-2993 MCE AC. Indeed, the complaints in the two actions are 

identical. The undersigned finds, therefore, that this action should be dismissed as duplicative of 

plaintiff’s earlier filed action in this court. 

/////

/////

/////

 

1

 This court may take judicial notice of its own records. See United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 

873, 876 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980); see also

FED. R. EVID. 201 (court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate 

determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned).

Case 2:14-cv-02994-GEB-DB Document 3 Filed 07/09/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 29, 2014 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 

No. 2) be denied;

2. Plaintiff’s December 29, 2014 complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be dismissed without

prejudice; and

3. This action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal 

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: July 8, 2015

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.pro se\mitchell2994.ifp.dup.f&rs.docx

Case 2:14-cv-02994-GEB-DB Document 3 Filed 07/09/15 Page 4 of 4