Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01707/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01707-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

JOSEPH BECKER,

CDCR #F-46642,

Civil No. 14cv1707 LAB (RBB)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) 

AND

2) DENYING MOTIONS TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

[ECF Doc. Nos. 2, 3]

vs.

B. POWELL, Classification Staff

Representative; J. LIZARRAGA,

Warden, Mule Creek State Prison,

Defendants.

Joseph Becker (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate currently incarcerated at Mule Creek

State Prison (“MSCP”) in Ione, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Compl.”) in this Court on July 18, 2014 (ECF

Doc. No. 1). 

Plaintiff alleges a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(“CDCR”) Classification Staff Representative in Sacramento, and the Warden of MCSP

violated his Eighth Amendment rights by endorsing a transfer from MCSP to the Sierra

Conservation Center (“SCC”) where he has known enemy inmates. See Compl. at 2-3. 

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv1707-Dsm-Duplicative.wpd -1- 14cv1707 LAB (RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-01707-LAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/23/14 Page 1 of 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

Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF Doc. No. 2), as well as a Motion for Injunctive Relief

preventing his transfer from MSCP to SCC (ECF Doc. No. 3). 

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 froma defendant who isimmune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2); Resnick v. Hayes,

213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000).

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 is already litigating in

the Eastern District of California, where he is incarcerated, and where his claims are

alleged to have arisen. In fact, the Complaint Plaintiff filed in this district on July 18,

2014, contains identical claims of wrongdoing against the same named defendants as a

Complaint Plaintiff filed in the Eastern District just one day before. See Becker v.

Powell, et al., E.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 2:14-cv-01688-TLN-CMK (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)). 

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv1707-Dsm-Duplicative.wpd -2- 14cv1707 LAB (RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-01707-LAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/23/14 Page 2 of 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

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 is already litigating the same claims

presented in the instant action in Becker v. Powell, et al., E.D. Cal. Civil Case No.2:14-

cv-01688-TLN-CMK, the Court must dismiss this duplicative and subsequently filed

civil case, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 14cv1707 LAB (RBB), 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.

II. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, ITIS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action, Becker

v. Powell, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 14cv1707 LAB (RBB), 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), and his Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF Doc. No. 3), are

DENIED without prejudice to his pursuit of the same claims currently pending before

United States District Judge Troy L. Nunley in the Eastern District of California in

Becker v. Powell, et al., E.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 2:14-cv-1688-TLN-CMK. 

1

The Clerk shall close the file.

DATED: October 20, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Even if Plaintiff’s Complaint in this case were not duplicative of the one he had

1

previously filed in the Eastern District, it would be subject to dismissal or transfer to the

Eastern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), asthe Southern District isthe improper

venue for raising claims which are alleged to have arisen at MCSP against MCSP and

CDCR officials. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (providing that venue in a civil action is

proper in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, ...” or “(2) a judicial

district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim

occurred ....”); Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (providing that

venue may be raised by a court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a

responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not run.); 28 U.S.C. § 84(d) (“The

Southern District [of California] comprises the counties of Imperial and San Diego.”). 

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv1707-Dsm-Duplicative.wpd -3- 14cv1707 LAB (RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-01707-LAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/23/14 Page 3 of 3