Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01124/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01124-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:19-cv-1124-AJB-MDD

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

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HATCHER, et al.,

Inmate Booking No. 19705701,

Plaintiff,

v.

SNR SERINA; DR. FREEDLAND

DR. LEON,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-1124-AJB-MDD

ORDER: (1) DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1); AND (2) DENYING 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AS MOOT

[ECF Doc. No. 2]

Robert Hatcher (“Plaintiff”), currently detained at the San Diego Central Jail 

(“SDCJ”) located in San Diego, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., ECF Doc. No. 1.

Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a 

civil action when he filed his Complaint; instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF Doc. No. 2.

Case 3:19-cv-01124-AJB-MDD Document 3 Filed 07/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-1124-AJB-MDD

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

I. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the 

Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who 

is 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” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays 

filing fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Pursuant to this 

provision of the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints which “seek[] 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a government entity,” and to 

dismiss those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 

443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). 

“The purpose of § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need 

not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 

2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 

2012)).

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

§ 1915A(b)(1) because it is identical and duplicative of another civil action he has filed in 

this Court. See Hatcher v. Serina, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:19cv1089-JAH-LL. 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.’”

Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, 

Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s 

Complaint filed in this action is identical to the pleading he filed in Hatcher v. Serina, et 

al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:19cv1089-JAH-LL.

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 

Case 3:19-cv-01124-AJB-MDD Document 3 Filed 07/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-1124-AJB-MDD

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

1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and

internal quotations omitted). Because Plaintiff has already brought the same claims 

presented in the instant action against the same defendants in Hatcher v. Serina, et al., 

S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:19cv1089-JAH-LL, the Court must dismiss this duplicative 

and subsequently filed civil case 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; see also Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 

487 F.3d 684, 688–89 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n assessing whether the second action is 

duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as 

well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.”), overruled on other grounds by 

Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).

II. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action is 

DISMISSED as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (ECF Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01124-AJB-MDD Document 3 Filed 07/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3