Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01180/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01180-0/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

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\07-1180-dup.wpd.13Aug07 -1- 07cv1180

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC BIGHAMES,

CDC #V-195566,

Civil No. 07-1180 L (WMc)

Plaintiff,

ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

AS DUPLICATIVE PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); and 

(2) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT

 [Doc. No. 2]

 vs.

ROBERT HERNANDEZ, et al., 

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a former state inmate incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional

Facility in San Diego, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);

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

§ 1915(a) [Doc. No 2].

////

Case 3:07-cv-01180-L-WMC Document 3 Filed 08/13/07 Page 1 of 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\07-1180-dup.wpd.13Aug07 -2- 07cv1180

I. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)

Notwithstanding IFP status or the payment of any partial filing fees, the Court must

subject each civil action commenced pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to mandatory screening

and order the sua sponte dismissal of any case it finds “frivolous, malicious, failing to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir.

2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not

only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that

fails to state a claim). 

Before its amendment by the PLRA, former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte

dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. However, as

amended, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to

the IFP provisions of section 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing

the U.S. Marshal to effect service pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2). See Calhoun, 254 F.3d at

845; Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127; see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604-05 (6th Cir.

1997) (stating that sua sponte screening pursuant to § 1915 should occur “before service of

process is made on the opposing parties”).

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

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it appears to be duplicative of a civil rights case Plaintiff is already

litigating. Plaintiff’s Complaint contains identical claims and defendants that are found in

Bighames v. Wall, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 07cv0227 JAH (PCL). 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.” United States ex rel. Robinson

Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). 

A plaintiff’s complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) 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

Case 3:07-cv-01180-L-WMC Document 3 Filed 08/13/07 Page 2 of 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\07-1180-dup.wpd.13Aug07 -3- 07cv1180

quotations omitted). Because Plaintiff is already litigating the same claims presented in the

instant action in Bighames v. Wall, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 07cv0227 JAH (PCL), the

Court hereby DISMISSES Civil Case No. 07cv1180 L (WMc) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2.

II. Conclusion and Order

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Plaintiff’s Complaint in Civil Case No. 07cv1180 L (WMc) is DISMISSED as frivolous

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2] is

DENIED as moot.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 13, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01180-L-WMC Document 3 Filed 08/13/07 Page 3 of 3