Opinion
C22-0657-JCC
05-17-2022
VICKI CHANG, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW VANDERWIELEN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter comes before the Court on pre-service review of Plaintiff's proposed in forma pauperis complaint (Dkt. No. 1-1), as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, recently filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1-3). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court must review and dismiss before service the associated complaint if it is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”).
Plaintiff's proposed complaint is similar, in all material respects, to the complaint she filed in an earlier-filed case: Chang v. Vanderwielen, Case No. C22-0013-JCC (W.D. Wash.). There, the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, United States Magistrate Judge, already issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of that complaint. See Case No. C22-0013-JCC, Dkt. No. 14. In the R&R, Judge Vaughan found that the complaint fails to state a claim for relief, at least with respect to Defendant Dr. Riddhi Kothari. See Case No. C22-0013-JCC, Dkt. No. 65 at 12. Moreover, Defendants Edward Collins and Andrew Vanderwielen-also named in this action-have since moved to dismiss that same complaint. See Case No. C22-0013-JCC, Dkt. No. 68. Therefore, it appears to the Court that Plaintiff's present in forma pauperis complaint is duplicative of Plaintiff's earlier action, which is presently being litigated.
An in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be dismissed under § 1915. 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). Similarly, an in forma pauperis complaint repeating the same factual allegations asserted in an earlier case, even if now filed against certain additional defendants, as is the case here, is also subject to dismissal as duplicative. See Van Meter v Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir 1975); Ballentine v Crawford, 563 F.Supp. 627, 629 (N.D. Ind. 1983).
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and the instant allegations are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice to reasserting them in another unpaid complaint. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a copy of this order.