Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02259/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02259-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY NICHOLSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN LEANDRO POLICE DEPT.; 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-2259 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Rodney Nicholson, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1915A, which requires the court to engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which

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 which 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. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

In his complaint, Nicholson alleges that he subjected to a forceful and wrongful arrest on

April 29, 2003 when he was arrested. Nicholson alleges that he rented a car, the car was stolen,

he told his parole officer, his parole officer told him to report it stolen in person, he made a report

at the car rental company, and was arrested while making that report. While attempting to resolve

the matter at the rental car company, he was arrested by San Leandro police officers
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Kovach and Cruz who allegedly used unnecessary force. He also states that he was charged based

on false information, and was later exonerated on the criminal charges (although his parole was

revoked). Nicholson's complaint appears to assert claims for false/wrongful arrest and excessive

force during the arrest.

The claims Nicholson asserts in his complaint are not new. They repeat claims made in

another action dismissed shortly before Nicholson filed this action. See Nicholson v. Kovach,

No. C 04-1789 SI. That action was filed in this court on May 5, 2005 (as a removed case from

state court) and, after Nicholson unsuccessfully attempted to amend his complaint, was dismissed

with prejudice on April 18, 2005. See Order of Dismissal in Case No. C 04-1789 SI. Nicholson

did not appeal that dismissal; instead, he filed this action about six weeks later. 

The complaint is frivolous because it repeats claims made in Case No. C 04-1789 SI. See

Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019,

1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action

is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious). The fact that Nicholson has added

some new defendants does not save his complaint because it still asserts the same basic claims

based on the same facts alleged in Case No. C 04-1789 SI. See id. If Nicholson disagreed with

the court's ruling in Case No. C 04-1789 SI, his remedy was to appeal that decision rather than to

file a new action repeating the same claims.

This action is dismissed with prejudice. This dismissal counts as a dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g) because the complaint is being dismissed as frivolous. The in forma pauperis

application is DENIED. (Docket # 2.) The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September _28__, 2005 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY NICHOLSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN LEANDRO POLICE DEPT.; 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-2259 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Rodney Nicholson, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1915A, which requires the court to engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which

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 which 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. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

In his complaint, Nicholson alleges that he subjected to a forceful and wrongful arrest on

April 29, 2003 when he was arrested. Nicholson alleges that he rented a car, the car was stolen,

he told his parole officer, his parole officer told him to report it stolen in person, he made a report

at the car rental company, and was arrested while making that report. While attempting to resolve

the matter at the rental car company, he was arrested by San Leandro police officers
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Kovach and Cruz who allegedly used unnecessary force. He also states that he was charged based

on false information, and was later exonerated on the criminal charges (although his parole was

revoked). Nicholson's complaint appears to assert claims for false/wrongful arrest and excessive

force during the arrest.

The claims Nicholson asserts in his complaint are not new. They repeat claims made in

another action dismissed shortly before Nicholson filed this action. See Nicholson v. Kovach,

No. C 04-1789 SI. That action was filed in this court on May 5, 2005 (as a removed case from

state court) and, after Nicholson unsuccessfully attempted to amend his complaint, was dismissed

with prejudice on April 18, 2005. See Order of Dismissal in Case No. C 04-1789 SI. Nicholson

did not appeal that dismissal; instead, he filed this action about six weeks later. 

The complaint is frivolous because it repeats claims made in Case No. C 04-1789 SI. See

Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019,

1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action

is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious). The fact that Nicholson has added

some new defendants does not save his complaint because it still asserts the same basic claims

based on the same facts alleged in Case No. C 04-1789 SI. See id. If Nicholson disagreed with

the court's ruling in Case No. C 04-1789 SI, his remedy was to appeal that decision rather than to

file a new action repeating the same claims.

This action is dismissed with prejudice. This dismissal counts as a dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g) because the complaint is being dismissed as frivolous. The in forma pauperis

application is DENIED. (Docket # 2.) The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September _28__, 2005 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge