Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02036/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02036-0/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

1 10cv2036 JAH (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOANG MINH TRAN,

CDCR # AA-5994 Civil

No. 

10cv2036 JAH (WVG)

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT AS

FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT TO 28

vs. U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)

WILLIAM GORE; SCHROEDER;

RUBY BLANK; ESPINOZA; BORDEN;

GARY DOE; BROWN AND JOHN DOES,

Defendants.

I. Procedural History

On September 27, 2010, Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at California

Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On November 5, 2010, this Court granted

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a

claim and as frivolous. See Nov. 5, 2010 Order at 5. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an

Amended Complaint. Id. at 4-5. However, because the time had passed for Plaintiff to file his

First Amended Complaint, the Court dismissed the action in its entirety for all the reasons set

Case 3:10-cv-02036-JAH-POR Document 8 Filed 02/15/11 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

2 10cv2036 JAH (POR)

forth in the November 5, 2010 Order and for failing to comply with a Court Order. See Jan. 18,

2011 Order at 1-2. However, Plaintiff then sought leave to file his First Amended Complaint

which the Court permitted in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status. Thus, the Court will set aside the

Clerk’s Judgment entered on January 18, 2011 and conduct a sua sponte screening of Plaintiff’s

First Amended Complaint.

II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

As the Court stated in its November 5, 2010 Order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act

(“PLRA”)’s amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 obligates the Court to review complaints filed by

all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any

facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law

or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as

soon as practicable after docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Under

these provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any prisoner civil action and all other IFP

complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which

seek damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A;

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v.

Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 n.1 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A).

Here, the Court finds that the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint are duplicative of the claims that he has filed in previous actions. 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 prisoner’s

complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) 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 quotations omitted). The Court

finds that Plaintiff has brought the same claims in this action in Tran v. Gore, et al. S.D. Cal.

Civil Case No. 10cv0464 DMS (POR) and Tran v. Gore, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No.

10cv1751 JAH (WVG). 

Case 3:10-cv-02036-JAH-POR Document 8 Filed 02/15/11 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

3 10cv2036 JAH (POR)

Because Plaintiff is already litigating the same claims presented in the instant action in

the above referenced actions, the Court dismisses all claims found in this action as frivolous

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446

n.1.

III CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:.

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as frivolous

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) and § 1915A(b). Moreover, because the Court finds

amendment of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims would be futile at this time, leave to amend is DENIED.

See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial of a leave to amend

is not an abuse of discretion where further amendment would be futile); see also Robinson v.

California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (“Since plaintiff has

not, and cannot, state a claim containing an arguable basis in law, this action should be dismissed

without leave to amend; any amendment would be futile.”) (citing Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d

904, 907 (9th Cir. 1996)).

IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that an IFP appeal from this final order of dismissal

would not appear to be taken “in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge

v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977)

(indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be frivolous).

The Clerk shall close the file.

DATED: February 15, 2011 _________________________________________

 HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

 United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02036-JAH-POR Document 8 Filed 02/15/11 Page 3 of 3