Trotter v. Los Angeles County
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, finding the complaint to be an identical duplicate of a previously filed action that had been transferred to the Central District of California. The court dismissed the civil action without prejudice as duplicative under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of civil action as duplicative“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED without prejudice as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) to dismiss the complaint. The order establishes that the current complaint is an identical photocopy of a complaint filed in a prior case (24cv2200) that is currently pending in the Central District of California. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a prisoner's complaint is subject to dismissal if it merely repeats pending claims. Because the parties, causes of action, and relief sought are identical, the dismissal is legally sound. |
Denial of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot” | agree with court The denial is procedurally correct. Because the underlying civil action was dismissed, there is no pending case in which to grant in forma pauperis status. Denying the motion as moot is the standard procedural consequence of dismissing the action. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and correctly applies the relevant statutory provision and Ninth Circuit case law. It clearly identifies the factual basis for the dismissal (identical complaints, same parties, pending status of the prior case) and cites the appropriate legal standard for determining duplicative claims. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY EARL TROTTER, Case No.: 24cv2252-RHS (JLB) CDCR #BC-6851, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 vs. (1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 14 AS DUPLICATIVE PURSUANT 15 TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al., 16 Defendants. (2) DENYING MOTION TO 17 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT 18 19 20 Bobby Earl Trotter (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil 21 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Trotter alleges his 22 constitutional rights were violated during Los Angeles County Superior Court criminal 23 proceedings and is suing the county, superior court, and the attorneys who prosecuted and 24 defended him there. Id. at 3-6. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma 25 Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 2. 26 The Complaint in this case is an identical photocopy of a Complaint filed in this 27 Court on November 20, 2024, which was transferred for lack of venue to the District Court 28 for the Central District of California, Western Division, on December 4, 2024. See Compl., 1 || ECF No. 1 and Order of Transfer, ECF No. 4, in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv2200-AGS 2 || (MSB). Both suits name the same Defendants, allege the same causes of action, request the 3 same relief, and are signed by Plaintiff on the same day, November 18, 2024, with identical 4 ||signatures. Compare S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv2200-AGS (MSB), Compl., ECF No. 5 || 1, with, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv2252-RSH (JLB), Compl., ECF No. 1. 6 A prisoner’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 7 1915A(b)(1) if it “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United 8 || States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). 9 || “[I]n assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether 10 causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the 11 ||same.” Adams v. Cal. Dep ’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled 12 || on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). Because the same claims 13 presented in the instant action against the same Defendants are currently pending in the 14 || previously-filed case, this subsequently-filed duplicative action may not concurrently 15 || proceed. See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED 17 || without prejudice as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and □□□□□□□□□□□ 18 || Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot. The dismissal of 19 ||this case shall operate without prejudice to Plaintiff's pursuit of his claims in his 20 || previously-filed case. The Clerk will TERMINATE this case and close the file. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: December 17, 2024 fekut G Low 23 Hon. RobertS.Huie A United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 2