Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02035/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02035-1/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARK F. KOCH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CARLA WADE, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 16-02035 BLF (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, an inmate at the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”) in Stockton, 

filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,1

 against Defendant 

Carla Wade. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted in a 

separate order. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 

 

1 This matter was transferred in from the Eastern District of California for lack of proper 

venue because the defendant is located in and claims arose in Santa Cruz County, which 

lies within the venue of this district. (Docket No. 5.) 

Case 5:16-cv-02035-BLF Document 13 Filed 07/28/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that 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. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 

construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 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 violation was committed by a person acting under the 

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

B. Plaintiff’s Claims 

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant Carla Wade, who is the “Probation 

Supervisor” in Santa Cruz. (Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff claims that in September 2014, 

Defendant called his boss and had him fired from his new job, thereby depriving him of 

fair employment. (Id.) He also claims that she “discriminated against me mentally,” and 

was “harassing me when I had the right to travel 50 miles out of my county to work,” 

according to the terms of his probation. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that it is “cruel and unusual 

in that I had to sleep at the back door at probation while I wore a clastomy [sic] bag and 

had no access to a rest room or running water.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff filed a previous action before this Court against the same Defendant under 

Koch v. County of Santa Cruz Probation, et al., Case No. 15-03895 BLF (PR) (“Koch I”), 

which was dismissed on April 5, 2016, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted. In that case, Plaintiff claimed that in September 2014, Defendant Wade told 

him that he could no longer go to Monterey, and that she called his boss and had him fired. 

Koch I, (ECF No. 18 at 3). Plaintiff also claimed that Defendant Wade violated his right 

under the Eighth Amendment “not to have unusual and cruel conditions imposed on 

[him].” (Id. at 3-4.) 

Case 5:16-cv-02035-BLF Document 13 Filed 07/28/16 Page 2 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

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

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); 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. 

Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021; Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1975). 

Plaintiff is seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as he did in the previous 

action discussed above. This is now Plaintiff’s second in forma pauperis action filed 

against the same Defendant in which he repeats the same claims. It is therefore subject to 

dismissal under § 1915 as abusive. See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Bailey, 846 F.2d at 

1021. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED as duplicative and abusive. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order of Dismissal 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.16\02035Koch_dism(dup) 

July 28, 2016

Case 5:16-cv-02035-BLF Document 13 Filed 07/28/16 Page 3 of 3