Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00753/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00753-0/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

3:17-cv-00753-JAH-NLS

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

MICHAEL SCHMITT,

CDCR #BB-8941,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SHERIFF BILL GORE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00753-JAH-NLS

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION:

1) FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING 

FEES OR FILE A MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

AND

2) AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)

MICHAEL SCHMITT (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at North Kern State 

Prison (“NKSP”) in Delano, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights 

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). He has not prepaid the $400 civil 

filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and has not filed a Motion to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)—although he has filed a letter 

indicating he has requested a certified copy of his prison trust account statements from 

NKSP (ECF No. 2).

Case 3:17-cv-00753-JAH-NLS Document 3 Filed 07/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:17-cv-00753-JAH-NLS

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)).

Regardless of whether Plaintiff paid the filing fee, or filed a properly supported 

Motion to Proceed IFP, however, a preliminary review of his Complaint shows this case 

is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it is 

duplicative of another civil action he filed back in 2014. See Schmitt v. Gore, et al.., S.D. 

Cal. Civil Case No. 3:14-cv-02937-JLS-RBB (“Schmitt I”) (ECF No. 1). 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)). 

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 3:17-cv-00753-JAH-NLS Document 3 Filed 07/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:17-cv-00753-JAH-NLS

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). In Schmitt I, Plaintiff alleged, as he does in this case, that 

San Diego County Sheriff William Gore, a Deputy Sheriff named Morgan, and the City 

of Santee, all violated his constitutional rights on August 14, 2014, by conducting an 

illegal search and seizure at a residence owned by Jeff Freihtsikking. Compare ECF No. 

1 in 14cv2937-JLS-RBB with ECF No. 1 at 17cv0753-JAH-NLS. Plaintiff contends, in 

both cases, that Defendants “falsely” arrested him as a result of the search, and damaged 

both his and Freihtsikking’s property. (Id.) 

Because Plaintiff has already brought the identical claims presented in the instant 

action against the same defendants in Schmitt I, 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

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action based on Plaintiff’s failure to 

pay filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), his failure to properly move to proceed 

IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1). The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in 

good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2017

HON.JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00753-JAH-NLS Document 3 Filed 07/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:17-cv-00753-JAH-NLS

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

Case 3:17-cv-00753-JAH-NLS Document 3 Filed 07/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4