Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01285/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01285-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

JDDL-K 

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Benny Trejo, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Az Atty Gen. Tom Horne, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-01285-PHX-SPL (BSB) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Benny Trejo, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis 

in Buckeye, Arizona, has filed a Complaint (Doc. 1). 

 “[P]risoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts.” Bounds v. Smith, 

430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). However, the right of access to the courts is “not absolute or 

unconditional in the civil context.” Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 

2002). Every paper filed with a court requires the expenditure of some of the court’s 

limited judicial resources. In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989). When a court is 

forced to devote its limited judicial resources to processing repetitious and frivolous 

cases, the “goal of fairly dispensing justice . . . is compromised.” In re Sindram, 498 

U.S. 177, 179-80 (1991). The court’s ability to ensure the administration of justice for all

litigants is endangered by the abusive conduct of a few. 

 Congress, in enacting the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), provided the 

federal courts with a means of relieving a “civil justice system overburdened by frivolous 

prisoner lawsuits,” 141 Cong. Rec. S14408-01 (daily ed. Sept. 27, 1995) (statement of 

Case 2:14-cv-01285-SPL--BSB Document 3 Filed 06/23/14 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

JDDL-K 

Sen. Hatch), and reducing “the number of nonmeritorious actions brought by prisoners 

for whom litigation was a costless pastime.” Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 208 F.3d 

1032, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court is required to 

screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 

officer or an employee of a governmental entity. The Court must dismiss a complaint or 

portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that 

fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint. It is virtually identical to a 

Complaint previously filed by Arizona Department of Corrections inmate Dale Maisano 

and summarily dismissed by the Court. Like inmate Maisano’s document, the Complaint 

is a single page, is not filed on the required court-approved form, and is not accompanied 

by either an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis or the $350.00 filing fee and 

$50.00 administrative fee. Indeed, it appears Plaintiff’s Complaint was written by inmate 

Maisano and Plaintiff simply replaced inmate Maisano’s name and signature with his 

own. For these reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous.1

 Cf. Cato v. 

United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (no abuse of discretion in 

dismissing action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 where complaint “merely repeats 

pending or previously litigated claims”). 

 This Order serves as notice of the Court’s intent to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 

and this lawsuit as frivolous. The Court will permit Plaintiff an opportunity to show 

cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss the Complaint and this lawsuit as 

frivolous. Plaintiff’s response to this Order shall be limited to this issue and shall be 

filed within 20 days of the date this Order is filed. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to 

this Order or fails to persuade the Court that the Complaint and lawsuit should not be 

 

1

 Because of the frivolous nature of this action, the Court has directed the Clerk of 

Court to docket only the name of the first named Defendant in this case because entering onto the docket all of the Defendants named in the Complaint needlessly wastes the Court’s limited resources. The Clerk of Court will make a notation on the docket that the 

list of defendants on the docket sheet is only a partial list. 

Case 2:14-cv-01285-SPL--BSB Document 3 Filed 06/23/14 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

JDDL-K 

dismissed as frivolous, the Court will issue an Order dismissing the Complaint and 

lawsuit as frivolous. 

 Plaintiff is cautioned that a case that is dismissed as frivolous may count as a 

“strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under the 3-strikes 

provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma 

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while 

incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the 

United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Moreover, the Court can 

impose additional sanctions, including monetary sanctions, on abusive litigants. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, within 20 days of 

the date this Order is filed, why his Complaint and this lawsuit should not be dismissed as 

frivolous. Plaintiff’s written response shall be limited to this issue only. 

 (2) If Plaintiff fails to file a response to this Order to Show Cause within 20 

days of the date this Order is filed or fails to persuade the Court that the Complaint and 

lawsuit should not be dismissed as frivolous, the Court will dismiss the Complaint and 

this lawsuit as frivolous and will direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 23rd day of June, 2014.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01285-SPL--BSB Document 3 Filed 06/23/14 Page 3 of 3