Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2014cv01280/867306/4
Timestamp: 2017-10-22 12:06:06
Document Index: 660151135

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

ORDER, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing, within 20 days, why his Complaint and this lawsuit should not be dismissed as frivolous; Plaintiff's written response shall be limited to this issue only; if Plaintiff fails to file a respon se to this Order to Show Cause within 20 days of the date this Order is filed or fails to persuade the Court that the Complaint and lawsuit should not be dismissed as frivolous, the Court will dismiss the Complaint and this lawsuit as frivolous and will direct the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly for Trejo v. Brewer et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Arizona Arizona District Court Trejo v. Brewer et al Filing 4
ORDER, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing, within 20 days, why his Complaint and this lawsuit should not be dismissed as frivolous; Plaintiff's written response shall be limited to this issue only; if Plaintiff fails to file a respon se to this Order to Show Cause within 20 days of the date this Order is filed or fails to persuade the Court that the Complaint and lawsuit should not be dismissed as frivolous, the Court will dismiss the Complaint and this lawsuit as frivolous and will direct the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 6/23/14. (REW)
1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Benny Trejo, 10 11 12 13 No. CV 14-01280-PHX-SPL (BSB) Plaintiff, vs. ORDER Gov. Jan Brewer, et al., Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff Benny Trejo, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis in Buckeye, Arizona, has filed a Complaint (Doc. 1). 17 “[P]risoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts.” Bounds v. Smith, 18 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). However, the right of access to the courts is “not absolute or 19 unconditional in the civil context.” Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 20 2002). Every paper filed with a court requires the expenditure of some of the court’s 21 limited judicial resources. In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989). When a court is 22 forced to devote its limited judicial resources to processing repetitious and frivolous 23 cases, the “goal of fairly dispensing justice . . . is compromised.” In re Sindram, 498 24 U.S. 177, 179-80 (1991). The court’s ability to ensure the administration of justice for all 25 litigants is endangered by the abusive conduct of a few. 26 27 federal courts with a means of relieving a “civil justice system overburdened by frivolous 28 JDDL-K Congress, in enacting the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), provided the prisoner lawsuits,” 141 Cong. Rec. S14408-01 (daily ed. Sept. 27, 1995) (statement of 1 Sen. Hatch), and reducing “the number of nonmeritorious actions brought by prisoners 2 for whom litigation was a costless pastime.” Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 208 F.3d 3 1032, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court is required to 4 screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 5 officer or an employee of a governmental entity. The Court must dismiss a complaint or 6 portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that 7 fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a 8 defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 9 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint. It is virtually identical to a 10 Complaint previously filed by Arizona Department of Corrections inmate Dale Maisano 11 and summarily dismissed by the Court. Like inmate Maisano’s document, the Complaint 12 is a single page, is not filed on the required court-approved form, and is not accompanied 13 by either an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis or the $350.00 filing fee and 14 $50.00 administrative fee. Indeed, it appears Plaintiff’s Complaint was written by inmate 15 Maisano and Plaintiff simply replaced inmate Maisano’s name and signature with his 16 own. For these reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous.1 Cf. Cato v. 17 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (no abuse of discretion in 18 dismissing action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 where complaint “merely repeats 19 pending or previously litigated claims”). 20 This Order serves as notice of the Court’s intent to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 21 and this lawsuit as frivolous. The Court will permit Plaintiff an opportunity to show 22 cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss the Complaint and this lawsuit as 23 frivolous. Plaintiff’s response to this Order shall be limited to this issue and shall be 24 filed within 20 days of the date this Order is filed. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to 25 this Order or fails to persuade the Court that the Complaint and lawsuit should not be 26 1 27 28 JDDL-K Because of the frivolous nature of this action, the Court has directed the Clerk of Court to docket only the name of the first named Defendant in this case because entering onto the docket all of the Defendants named in the Complaint needlessly wastes the Court’s limited resources. The Clerk of Court will make a notation on the docket that the list of defendants on the docket sheet is only a partial list. -2- 1 dismissed as frivolous, the Court will issue an Order dismissing the Complaint and 2 lawsuit as frivolous. 3 Plaintiff is cautioned that a case that is dismissed as frivolous may count as a 4 “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under the 3-strikes 5 provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma 6 pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while 7 incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the 8 United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 9 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent 10 danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Moreover, the Court can 11 impose additional sanctions, including monetary sanctions, on abusive litigants. 12 IT IS ORDERED: 13 (1) Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, within 20 days of 14 the date this Order is filed, why his Complaint and this lawsuit should not be dismissed as 15 frivolous. Plaintiff’s written response shall be limited to this issue only. 16 (2) If Plaintiff fails to file a response to this Order to Show Cause within 20 17 days of the date this Order is filed or fails to persuade the Court that the Complaint and 18 lawsuit should not be dismissed as frivolous, the Court will dismiss the Complaint and 19 this lawsuit as frivolous and will direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly. 20 Dated this 23rd day of June, 2014. 21 22 Honorable Steven P. Logan United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 JDDL-K -3-