Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01502/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01502-0/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-1502-LAB-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

GUY ORLANDO WILLIAMSON,

CDCR #BG-9879,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIONES, Correctional Officer;

SALIS, Correctional Officer,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-1502-LAB-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]

Guy Orlando Williamson, (“Plaintiff”), currently housed at the Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility (“RJD”) located in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, 

filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl. at 1, ECF Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff 

did not prepay the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing; 

instead he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF Doc. No. 2).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01502-LAB-MDD Document 4 Filed 11/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-1502-LAB-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 duplicative of another civil action he has pending in this 

Court. See Williamson v. California Dep’t of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., S.D. 

Cal. Civil Case No. 3:19-cv-1178-AJB-KSC (Compl., ECF Doc. 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 

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

Case 3:19-cv-01502-LAB-MDD Document 4 Filed 11/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-1502-LAB-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

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

presented in the instant action against the same defendants in Williamson v. California 

Dep’t of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:19-cv-1178-

AJB-KSC, 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 frivolous 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 and that this dismissal shall operate 

without prejudice to Plaintiff’s pursuit of the same claims against the same parties which 

are currently pending in Williamson v. California Dep’t of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:19-cv-1178-AJB-KSC.

The Clerk shall close the file.

Dated: November 4, 2019 ________________________________________

Hon. Larry A. Burns 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01502-LAB-MDD Document 4 Filed 11/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3