Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00099/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00099-0/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

3:18-cv-00099-DMS-BLM

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

PATRICK SHIELDS,

CDCR #AY-3237,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Chaplain KAHN; R. BROWN, 

Community Resources Manager; 

E. GARZA, Captain; 

D. PARAMO, Warden,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00099-DMS-BLM

ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 

CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

On December 29, 2017, PATRICK SHIELDS (“Plaintiff”), incarcerated at Richard 

J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro 

se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a Motion to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Both Plaintiff’s Complaint and his IFP Motion were electronically filed by prison 

officials at RJD pursuant to S.D. Cal. General Order 653, which adopted an e-file pilot 

program between RJD and the United States Court for the Southern District of California 

in order to “reduce the cost and delay in processing court filings in civil rights cases 

brought by incarcerated plaintiffs [at RJD] under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” See S.D. Cal. Gen. 

Case 3:18-cv-00099-DMS-BLM Document 6 Filed 03/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-00099-DMS-BLM

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

Order 653 at 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint and his IFP were emailed from RJD and received by 

the Clerk of Court on the same day, and the case was assigned S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 

3:17-cv-02597-JLS-MDD. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007)

(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.’”) 

(citation omitted).

Plaintiff’s Complaint names RJD’s Chaplain Kahn, its Community Resources 

Manager R. Brown, Correctional Captain E. Garza, and Warden D. Paramo as 

Defendants, and it alleges violations of Plaintiff’s rights to free exercise and equal 

protection related to his participation in Ramadan in May 2017. See S.D. Cal. Civil Case

No. 3:17-cv-02597-JLS-MDD, Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2-7. On March 14, 2018, Judge 

Sammartino granted Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, and directed the U.S. Marshal to effect 

service upon Defendants Kahn, Brown, Garza, and Paramo on Plaintiff’s behalf pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). See id., ECF No. 5.

In the meantime, on January 16, 2018, the Clerk of Court received a second 

electronic copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion to Proceed IFP from RJD officials, 

and not realizing the pleadings were exact duplicates of those first received on December 

29, 2017, and already assigned S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-002597-JLS-MDD, 

opened this case and assigned it S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00099-DMS-BLM. 

The Clerk of the Court has since verified with RJD officials that the second filing 

was sent in error. The Court has also reviewed the pleadings in both cases, and confirms

they are indeed identical. See Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n assessing whether [a] second action is duplicative of the first, 

[courts] 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).

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-00099-DMS-BLM Document 6 Filed 03/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-00099-DMS-BLM

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

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES the later-filed and duplicate civil 

action assigned S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00099-DMS-MDD without prejudice as 

inadvertently filed, and DENIES the pending Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) as 

moot.

No filing fees are to be assessed in this matter, and the dismissal of this action shall 

operate without any prejudice to the pursuit of Plaintiff’s pending claims in S.D. Cal. 

Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-02597-JLS-MDD. Moreover, the dismissal of this case shall not

be counted as a “strike” against Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in any future 

proceedings.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00099-DMS-BLM Document 6 Filed 03/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3