Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01434/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01434-3/pdf.json

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAS ADISA GAMBA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1434 LKK GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se, who seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma

pauperis. As noted in its January 9, 2006, show cause order, this proceeding was referred to this

court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The undersigned directed plaintiff to show cause, prior to being able to make a

determination whether plaintiff could proceed in forma pauperis, why his complaint failed to

reflect the actual number of lawsuits he has brought while a prisoner. See Order, filed on

January 9, 2006. Plaintiff was further ordered to set forth each case with its respective

disposition. 

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-01434-LKK -GGH Document 13 Filed 07/28/06 Page 1 of 6
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

 Plaintiff filed a subsequent in forma pauperis application on August 1, 2005 (file- 1

stamped July 29, 2005).

 The court also notes that plaintiff has filed this complaint, apparently improperly, under 2

a different last name from that of the plaintiff in the only prior case which he has identified as

his.

2

Having noted that plaintiff signed both his complaint and his application to

proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner under penalty of perjury, file-stamped July 18, 2005, on 1

July 11, 2005 and March 21, 2005, respectively, the court observed that while plaintiff responded

in the affirmative to the question of whether he had filed any other lawsuit, his response to the

question “how many?” produced the single word “published,” a non sequitur. 

Plaintiff went on to identify only one case: Oluwa v. Gomez, 133 F.3d 1237(9th

Cir. 1998). Court records, however, indicated that, at the time of filing the instant complaint,

2

plaintiff had previously filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California,

alone no less than twenty-two (22) cases. The court opined that perhaps plaintiff had failed to

truthfully declare the actual number of cases he had filed prior to filing this action and their

disposition because of the bar to proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil action or on an appeal as

a prisoner if a civil action or appeal he/she has brought, while incarcerated, on three or more

prior occasions has been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted (absent a showing of imminent danger of serious physical injury). 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Plaintiff was initially granted twenty days to show cause why this court should not

impose the sanction of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1)(B) for violation of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11(b), and to indicate the disposition of each of the cases he brought prior to the instant

action. Thereafter, by Order, filed on February 16, 2006, plaintiff was granted a thirty-day 

extension of time to file his response. Although plaintiff filed a response, it is not particularly

satisfactory. For example, plaintiff replies in speculative fashion:

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-01434-LKK -GGH Document 13 Filed 07/28/06 Page 2 of 6
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

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1)(B) sets forth that: 3

“On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the

specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and

directing a...party to show cause why it has not violated

3

It may be that Ras has to date failed altogether to identify

completely the number of previous actions he has brought, and the

disposition thereof, because Ras simply does not have access to his

litigation histories manuscript files, which files were confiscated

by custodial staff and has [sic] yet to be returned to Ras.

Response to Show Cause Order, filed on March 16, 2006, p. 2.

Plaintiff should certainly know whether or not the reason he has failed to identify

the cases, which he still has not done in his response, in addition to continuing to fail to set forth

any dispositions thereof, is because he does not have the litigation history before him. However,

even assuming plaintiff intended his response to be more affirmatively expressed, it still does not

explain his total failure to provide the court with anything like an accurate number of the cases he

had filed prior to filing the instant action, when, under penalty of perjury, he filed the instant

action. Identifying one case as having been previously brought, whether plaintiff has the

documents of his many past or current cases before him or not, when he had brought at least 22

prior cases, is completely misleading and a wholesale misrepresentation on the face of it.

Plaintiff also misunderstood the significance of misrepresenting the number of

prior actions; he appears to believe that the only basis upon which the court would dismiss this

action would be his having brought three or more prior actions that would constitute strikes

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, precluding him from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action. 

However, that is simply not the case. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to show cause could

result in the sanction of dismissal of this action, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1)(B), for violation

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). By presenting a pleading to the court, “an attorney or an unrepresented

party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief” .... after a

reasonable inquiry, that the claims therein are warranted; in other words, a party may not

knowingly mislead the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).3

Case 2:05-cv-01434-LKK -GGH Document 13 Filed 07/28/06 Page 3 of 6
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

subdivision (b) with respect thereto.”

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 4

1377 (9 Cir. 1994); MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United th

States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

4

Plaintiff goes far afield, throwing up various red herrings, blaming prison officials

for his lack of “gainful employment or education or vocational training or work assignment....”

leading to his lack of an income. Response, p. 3. He further claims that he “is intentionally kept

in prison and in poverty as a form of overt discrimination against a second degree murderer....” 

Id. Plaintiff seeks to bootstrap the gravamen of the instant complaint, concerning his alleged

entitlement since December of 1989 to a release date hearing (separate from a parole suitability

hearing) onto his explanation for failing to be truthful to this court. Plaintiff suggests that the

court expend its resources, cull through his many prior cases, determine whether or not he has

had three or more cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim, and, if so,

he then, rather outrageously, seeks an opportunity to amend so that he might craft allegations,

that would somehow allow him to proceed under the imminent danger of serious physical injury

exception of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), even though his original allegations, on the face of it, do not

lend themselves in any way to such an exception. 

Plaintiff was directed to show cause for his failure to truthfully declare the number

of cases he has previously brought. Plaintiff has completely failed to do so. Notwithstanding,

the court will not recommend summary dismissal on the ground that he has failed to discharge

the show cause order and has violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b); rather, the court has now reviewed

the allegations of the complaint, without having granted plaintiff in forma pauperis status, and

now recommends summary dismissal of this action because it is entirely duplicative of an action

which is already proceeding in this court, Oluwa v. Director of California Dept. of Corrections, et

al., CIV S-04-0233 MCE GGH P, of which this court takes judicial notice. In that action, 4

plaintiff alleges that the defendant CDC Director has failed to follow state law in keeping

Case 2:05-cv-01434-LKK -GGH Document 13 Filed 07/28/06 Page 4 of 6
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 That is not to say that any such request would necessarily be granted. 5

5

accurate and updated records regarding his sentence and has not transmitted accurate records to

the Board of Prison Terms, the only agency authorized to release plaintiff, resulting in plaintiff’s

“false imprisonment.” See Complaint in Case No. CIV S-O4-0233, at pp. 3-3(a). Plaintiff

claims therein, under his indeterminate sentence, that he is entitled, to a term-setting hearing

pursuant to state law and directives, if an accurate records review were conducted. Complaint, p.

3(a). Plaintiff further alleges that the defendant (and defendant’s agents) conducted a

computation review hearing at the third level of an inmate appeal and failed to abide by

“Chairman R.K. Procunier’s 75/30 Directive,” such that plaintiff was not scheduled for a termsetting hearing and the Board of Prison Terms was not convened. Id. Plaintiff seeks money

damages and injunctive relief.

In the instant action, plaintiff sets forth almost precisely the same allegations,

once again naming the CDC Director as a defendant, with the only difference being the addition

of the Governor as a defendant. Plaintiff might have sought leave to amend the prior action to

add an additional party, but may not squander this court’s resources by proceeding in two 5

separate complaints on virtually identical allegations, seeking the same relief, against the same

party, but with one additional defendant. 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be summarily dismissed as

duplicative.

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-01434-LKK -GGH Document 13 Filed 07/28/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings an

d recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should

be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

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

DATED: 7/28/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

gamb1434.fr

Case 2:05-cv-01434-LKK -GGH Document 13 Filed 07/28/06 Page 6 of 6