Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01688/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01688-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

(Docket No. 1 at 4.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSS IVAN SOMMERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

D. SILVA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-1688 EDL (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 He has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons stated below, the complaint is DISMISSED.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

Case 3:15-cv-01688-EDL Document 5 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not

need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his

'entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation

of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to

raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim

for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff states he was unable to urinate for a random urination test due to a physical

problem. Plaintiff requested to be given a blood test as an alternative, but prison officials

refused to accept that alternative. Plaintiff alleges that his right to due process was

violated, and that the applicable California Code of Regulations sections are

unconstitutional.

Plaintiff has previously filed a civil rights case in this court in Sommers v. Im, No. 15-

1047 EDL (N.D. Cal. filed March 6, 2015) (“Sommers I”). In Sommers I, plaintiff names

some of the defendants named in the underlying case, and alleges the same general facts,

although in more detail, as he does here. On July 16, 2015, the court screened Sommers I,

and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s amended complaint in

Sommers I is currently due on August 13, 2015.

Duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject to

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious. Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021

(5th Cir. 1988). An in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or previously

Case 3:15-cv-01688-EDL Document 5 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under Section 1915. Cato v.

United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021). An

in forma pauperis complaint repeating the same factual allegations asserted in an earlier

case, even if now filed against new defendants, therefore is subject to dismissal as

duplicative. Id.; Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1975). “Dismissal of the

duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of proceedings,

promotes judicial economy and the “comprehensive disposition of litigation.” Adams v.

California, 487 F.3d 684, 692-93, 694 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), overruled on other

grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). Plaintiff’s underlying case is

duplicative of Sommers I because the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus

of fact, and defendants in both cases are parties or privies to the action. See Adams, 487

F.3d at 689. As plaintiff’s case is duplicative of Sommers I, which is currently pending

before this court, the instant action will be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

The complaint is DISMISSED as duplicative. The clerk shall terminate all pending

motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August , 2015. 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

P:\PRO-SE\EDL\CR.15\Sommers688dis.wpd

5

Case 3:15-cv-01688-EDL Document 5 Filed 08/05/15 Page 3 of 3