Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02281/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02281-0/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-2281-JAH-RBM

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

GREGORY LEON SPATCHER,

CDCR #BJ-9222, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

CITY OF OCEANSIDE; BEATRIZ 

GONZALES; JEFFREY BRANDT, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-2281-JAH-RBM

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

Gregory Leon Spatcher (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the California 

Institution for Men (“CIM”) in Chino, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil 

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl., ECF No. 1). Plaintiff did 

not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when he filed his 

Complaint; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2). 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-02281-JAH-RBM Document 3 Filed 02/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-2281-JAH-RBM

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 Spatcher v. Baird, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:19cv1936-BAS-MSB 

(“Spatcher I”). 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)). 

In Spatcher I, Plaintiff named Tri City Medical Center and the Oceanside Police 

Department as Defendants and sought to hold them liable for his claims of inadequate 

medical care following his arrest on May 7, 2019. See Spatcher I, Compl., ECF No. 1 at 

5-6. Likewise, in this matter before this Court, Plaintiff names the individual police 

Case 3:19-cv-02281-JAH-RBM Document 3 Filed 02/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

3:19-cv-2281-JAH-RBM

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

officers, along with the City of Oceanside, for alleged inadequate medical care at Tri City 

Medical Center on May 7, 2019. (See Compl. at 3-4.) The factual allegations in both 

matters are nearly identical and name some of the same Defendants. Thus, the Court 

finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint filed in this action is duplicative of the pleading he filed 

in Spatcher I. 

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 has already brought the same claims 

presented in the instant action against the same defendants in Spatcher v. Baird, et al., 

3:19-cv-1936-BAS-MSB, 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 and that this dismissal shall operate 

without prejudice. The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 13, 2020 

Hon. John A. Houston

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02281-JAH-RBM Document 3 Filed 02/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3