Opinion
3:21-cv-00805-TWR-MDD
06-03-2021
JACOBY CORTEZ HARPER, Booking No. 19746599, Plaintiff, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER:
1) ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CIVIL ACTION AND DIRECTING CLERK TO RE-FILE COMPLAINT AS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT IN CIVIL CASE No. 3:20-cv-02409-CAB-LL
AND
2) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT
[ECF No. 2]
Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge
Plaintiff Jacoby Cortez Harper, incarcerated at George Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to the Clerk of the Court on April 22, 2021, together with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). See ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”); ECF No. 2 (“IFP”). Plaintiff claims to have been injured during a racially-motivated attack by a group of Hispanic inmates who gained entry to a protective custody module at GBDF on August 18, 2020. See Compl. at 1, 3‒4. Plaintiff admits having filed a previous case involving the same or similar facts “incorrect[ly], ” however, and he attached a letter to the Clerk asking that his Complaint be filed as his “Amended County Claim” which he had “filled out to the best of [his] ability.” Id. at 6, 8. But Plaintiff did not caption his pleading as an Amended Complaint or include a civil case number referencing his prior case. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 5.1(b), (j)(3), (j)(4) (requiring the “number of the action” and a “brief designation of the document's nature” be included on the title page by the filing party).
Thus, the Court takes judicial notice of a previous civil action filed by Plaintiff Jacoby C. Harper, identified as San Diego County Sheriffs Department Inmate Booking No. 19746599, in Harper v. George Bailey Detention Facility, 3:20-cv-02409-CAB-LL (“Harper I ”). The facts alleged by Plaintiff in Harper I involve the same race-based assault at GBDF occurring on the same day (August 18, 2020). See Harper I, Compl., (ECF No. 1) at 1, 3. In Harper I, Judge Bencivengo granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, but dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Id., ECF No. 3 at 3‒8. Plaintiff was granted 60 days leave from March 15, 2021 to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the pleading deficiencies identified. See Id. at 8‒9. But no Amended Complaint has yet to be filed in that case.
A court may take judicial notice of its own records, see Molus v. Swan, Civil Case No. 3:05-cv-00452-MMA-WMc, 2009 WL 160937, *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2009) (citing United States v. Author Services, 804 F.2d 1520, 1523 (9th Cir. 1986)); Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entm't Inc., 112 F.Supp.3d 1011, 1034 (CD. Cal. 2015), and “‘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)); see also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992).
Because Plaintiff did not label the new Complaint he submitted to Clerk of the Court on April 22, 2021 as his Amended Complaint, or include any reference to Civil Case No. 3:20-cv-02409-CAB-LL on the face of his pleading, the Clerk opened Harper II as a new civil action, and randomly assigned it Civil Case No. 3:21-cv-00805-TWR-MDD.
But upon closer initial review of the pleadings submitted in both cases, this Court concludes Plaintiff did not intend to file a new and substantially duplicative civil action, but instead intended the pleading he submitted to the Clerk on April 22, 2021 to be his Amended Complaint in Harper I. See, e.g., Compl., at 8 (“This enclosed is an Amended County Claim.”); id. at 6 (“Relief was sought by the actions I'm taking now, after learning my case was filed incorrect[ly] due to lack of knowledge.”); see also Harper I, Civil Case No. 3:20-cv-02409-CAB-LL, ECF No. 3. “Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally, including pro se motions as well as complaints.” Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). The rule of liberal construction is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to administratively close Civil Case No. 3:21-cv-00805-TWR-MDD (Harper II), and re-file Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) as his First Amended Complaint in Harper I, Civil Case No. 20-cv-02409-CAB-LL. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that he must clearly label and include Civil Case No. 3:20-cv-02409-CAB-LL in the caption of all future filings submitted for consideration in that case.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained, the Court:
1) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) in Civil Case No. 3:21-cv-00805-TWR-MDD as Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. 3:20-cv-02409-CAB-LL, nunc pro tunc to April 22, 2021, the date it was received;
2) DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP in Civil Case No. 3:21-cv-00805-TWR-MDD without prejudice as unnecessary and moot [ECF No. 2]; and
3) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to administratively close Civil Case No. 3:21-cv-00805-TWR-MDD. The termination of this case will operate without prejudice to Plaintiffs pursuit of his alleged claims in Civil Case No. 3:20-cv-02409-CAB-LL, and will not be counted as a “strike” against Plaintiff in any future civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.