Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00465/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00465-0/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\08cv0465-duplicative.wpd.11Jun08 -1- 08cv0465

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY SAPP,

Inmate Booking No. 6465306,

Civil No. 08-0465 L (WMc)

Plaintiff,

ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

AS DUPLICATIVE PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); and 

(2) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND MOTION

TO APPOINT COUNSEL AS MOOT

 [Doc. Nos. 2, 3]

 vs.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT; SAN DIEGO COUNTY

JAIL, 

Defendants.

Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the George Bailey Detention Facility located

in San Diego, California 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], along with a Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. No. 3]. 

////

Case 3:08-cv-00465-L-WMC Document 4 Filed 06/11/08 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\08cv0465-duplicative.wpd.11Jun08 -2- 08cv0465

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). The Court must sua sponte dismiss prisoner complaints, or any

portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000).

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

§ 1915A(b)(1) because it appears to be duplicative of a case Plaintiff is already litigating.

Plaintiff’s Complaint contains identical claims that are found in Sapp v. San Diego County

Sheriff’s Department, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 08cv0271 JAH (POR). 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). Because Plaintiff is already litigating the same claims presented in the

instant action in Sapp v. San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No.

08cv0271 JAH (POR), the Court hereby DISMISSES Civil Case No. 08cv0465 L (WMc)

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.

II. Conclusion and Order

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Complaint in Civil Case No. 08cv0465 L (POR) is DISMISSED as

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 

Case 3:08-cv-00465-L-WMC Document 4 Filed 06/11/08 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\08cv0465-duplicative.wpd.11Jun08 -3- 08cv0465

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2] and Motion to Appoint Counsel are

DENIED as moot.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 10, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00465-L-WMC Document 4 Filed 06/11/08 Page 3 of 3