Opinion
22-cv-03630 BLF (PR)
11-29-2022
CURTIS TURNER, Plaintiff, v. LAUREL S. BRADY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
BETH LABSON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, who is currently confined at West County Detention Facility, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted in a separate order.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
B. Plaintiff's Claims
Plaintiff is asserts that his civil rights are being violated in connection with state criminal proceedings. Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. Plaintiff asserts that his claims involve “ineffective counsel, misconduct, discrimination, court conspiracy, terrorism/torment, attorney malpractice, neglect [and] pain [and] suffering by both courts supreme [and] district.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff names the following as defendants: Judge Laurel S. Brady and District Attorney Angela Lyddan. Id. at 2. Plaintiff seeks damages and for “charges dismissed immediately for court technicality.” Id. at 3.
Plaintiff filed a previous action in this district against the same Defendants, among others, making the same allegations as in the instant complaint and seeking damages. The previous action, Turner v. Contra Costa County Supreme Court, et al., Case No. 22-cv-03397 BLF (“Turner I”), was dismissed as several of the named defendants were immune from civil liability and the remaining claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Id., Dkt. No. 14 at 4-5. Two of the defendants in this earlier action included Defendants Brady and Lyddan, who are both immune from civil liability in their respective roles as judge and prosecutor. Id. at 3.
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 underlying case is duplicative of Turner I because the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts, i.e., the allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, and defendants in both cases are parties or privies to the action. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 689. As this case is duplicative of Turner 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, including Docket No. 8, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.