Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02083/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02083-0/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

1

 The proceedings were assigned to this Court, but all post-service matters have been referred

to Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major by Local Rule 72.3(e), “Assignment of § 1983 Prisoner Civil

Cases to United States Magistrate Judges,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\J\07cv2083-duplicative.wpd.14Dec07 -1- 07cv2083

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS MICHAEL GIECK,

CDCR #K-76640,

Civil No. 07cv2083 J (BLM)

Plaintiff,

ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

AS DUPLICATIVE PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); and 

(2) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND MOTION

TO AMEND COMPLAINT AS MOOT

 [Doc. Nos. 2, 4]

 vs.

L. CANADA, et al., 

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison located in

Calipatria, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §1983.1

 Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);

instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a) [Doc. No 2]. Before the Court was able to screen Plaintiff’s Complaint, he filed a

Case 3:07-cv-02083-J-BLM Document 8 Filed 12/14/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\J\07cv2083-duplicative.wpd.14Dec07 -2- 07cv2083

“Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint,” along with a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s

Motion seeking leave to file an Amended Complaint is DENIED as moot as “a party may amend

the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is

served.” FED.R.CIV.P.15(a). 

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). The Court must sua sponte dismiss prisoner complaints, or any

portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000).

 Plaintiff’s instant First Amended Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it appears to be duplicative of a civil rights case Plaintiff is

already litigating. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint contains identical claims and defendants

that are found in Gieck v. Sigmond, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 07cv1734 L (PCL). 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.” United States ex rel.

Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). 

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 litigated the same claims presented in the

instant action in Gieck v. Sigmond, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 07cv1734 L (PCL), the Court

hereby DISMISSES Civil Case No. 07cv2083 J (BLM) 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.

////

Case 3:07-cv-02083-J-BLM Document 8 Filed 12/14/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\J\07cv2083-duplicative.wpd.14Dec07 -3- 07cv2083

II. Conclusion and Order

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. 07cv2083 J (BLM) is DISMISSED

as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. No.

2] and “Motion to Submit Corrected Complaint” are DENIED as moot.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 14, 2007

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02083-J-BLM Document 8 Filed 12/14/07 Page 3 of 3