Opinion
24-cv-00536 BLF (PR)
04-29-2024
JAMES MAURICE DUCKETT, Plaintiff, v. P. GARCIA, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer P. Garcia for events that occurred at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff is currently at the California Medical Facility. Dkt. No. 6.
Plaintiff filed a previous action in this district against the same Defendant, making the same allegations as in the instant action and seeking damages. The previous action, Duckett v. Garcia, Case No. 23-cv-04748 BLF (“Duckett I”), was served on Defendant and is pending briefing. Id., Dkt. Nos. 13, 19.
Duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious. Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). An in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under § 1915. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. An in forma pauperis complaint repeating the same factual allegations asserted in an earlier case, even if now filed against new defendants, therefore is subject to dismissal as duplicative. Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021; Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1975). “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the “comprehensive disposition of litigation.” Adams v. California, 487 F.3d 684, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). Here, Plaintiff's case is duplicative of Duckett I because the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts, i.e., a cross-gender body search by Defendant P. Garcia on January 9, 2020, in violation of Plaintiff's civil rights. Compare Dkt. No. 8 at 3 with Duckett I, Dkt. No. 1 at 4. As this case is duplicative of Duckett I, the instant action will be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED as duplicative.
The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.