Stephen Mark Picart v. Program Sergeants Alejandro R. Gonzalez and Shade Williams and Correctional Officer Rashad Rainey
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis, finding the complaint to be a duplicate of a pending action in the same district. The court denied the IFP motion as moot and dismissed the complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed IFP Denied as Moot“Motion to proceed IFP [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot.” | agree with court The court correctly denied the motion as moot because the underlying complaint was dismissed. Since the case is being closed, there is no pending action for which IFP status is required in this specific docket. The plaintiff retains IFP status in the original case (25cv1846-AJB). |
Complaint Dismissed Without Prejudice and Without Leave to Amend“The Court DISMISSES the Complaint as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b). Since leave to amend would be futile, the dismissal is without leave to amend.” | agree with court The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to dismiss the complaint as duplicative of a pending case. The order recites that the complaints are identical photocopies and involve the same parties and claims. Dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate because amending a duplicate complaint to make it non-duplicate is futile when the claims are already pending in another case. The dismissal is without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to pursue the claims in the original case. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and well-supported. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for screening (§ 1915A), applies the appropriate standard for duplicative claims, and cites relevant Ninth Circuit authority. The factual finding that the complaints are identical photocopies supports the conclusion that the claims are duplicative. The denial of leave to amend is justified by futility. The dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiff's rights in the original case.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN MARK PICART, Case No.: 25cv3364-BTM (DDL) CDCR #G-67811, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 vs. (1) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 14 TO PROCEED IFP, and 15 Program Sergeants ALEJANDRO R. (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 16 GONZALEZ and SHADE WILLIAMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 17 and Correctional Officer RASHAD PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) RAINEY, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 Plaintiff Stephen Mark Picart, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil 22 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a motion to proceed in forma 23 pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1-2.) Because the Complaint is duplicative of a Complaint 24 Plaintiff is currently litigating in this Court, it is subject to dismissal. The Court denies as 25 moot his IFP motion. 26 I. Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 27 Because Plaintiff is a prisoner, his Complaint requires a pre-answer screening 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), which provides that the Court must sua sponte dismiss 1 a prisoner’s complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a 2 claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 3 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action is subject to sua sponte 4 dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it is duplicative of another civil 5 action he filed in this Court which is currently pending. See Picart v. Gonzalez, et al., S.D. 6 Cal. Civil Case No. 25cv1846-AJB (AHG). In fact, the body of the two complaints 7 containing their allegations are identical photocopies. (Compare ECF No. 1 at 3-5 with 8 Compl. filed July 16, 2025 [ECF No. 1] at 3-5 in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 25cv1846-AJB 9 (AHG).) A court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without 10 the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” 11 Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002). 12 Plaintiff alleges in both cases that while attending a computer class at the Richard J. 13 Donovan Correctional Facility on July 25, 2023, Defendant Program Sergeant Gonzalez 14 placed him in hand restraints and escorted him to a holding tank; after waiting several 15 hours, Picart became lightheaded because he had not eaten, told Gonzalez he was 16 lightheaded, and while in hand restraints reached for his walker so he could sit down to eat 17 lunch. (ECF No. 1 at 3-4; Compl. [ECF No. 1] at 3-4 in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 25cv1846- 18 AJB (AHG).) Picart alleges that after Gonzalez “said something,” Gonzalez and the other 19 two Defendants, Program Sergeant Williams and Correctional Officer Rainey, “grabbed 20 and slammed [him] to the floor” while he was still cuffed and “gasping for air due to [a] 21 chemical agent (pepper spray) being activate[d] in a very close proximity.” (ECF No. 1 at 22 4; Compl. [ECF No. 1] at 4 in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 25cv1846-AJB (AHG).) Picart 23 further alleges Gonzalez, Williams and Rainey “would not let [him] get up from the pool 24 of the chemical agent,” and refused to permit him to him to “rise up and catch his breath” 25 for approximately 2-3 minutes while they applied leg restraints for unknown reasons. (ECF 26 No. 1 at 5; Compl. [ECF No. 1] at 5 in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 25cv1846-AJB (AHG).) 27 Thus, Plaintiff is bringing the same claims against the same defendants in both cases. On 28 October 14, 2025, the Court in Plaintiff’s first-filed case granted him leave to proceed IFP, 1 || directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons, and ordered the United States Marshal to 2 || effect service of the summons and complaint. (See Order filed 10/14/25 [ECF No. 4] in 3 ||S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 25cv1846-AJB (AHG).) 4 A district court has discretion to dismiss a prisoner’s claims under 28 U.S.C. 5 1915A(b)(1) “that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United 6 || States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). Because Plaintiff is currently litigating the 7 same claims presented in this action against the same defendants as he is in S.D. Cal. Civil 8 No. 25cv1846-AJB (AHG), the Court dismisses this case without leave to amend. 9 || Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n assessing 10 || whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of 11 action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the □□□□□□□□ 12 || overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). 13 Conclusion and Order 14 The Court DISMISSES the Complaint as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 15 1915A(b). Since leave to amend would be futile, the dismissal is without leave to amend. 16 || See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Futility of amendment can, by 17 |litself, justify the denial of... leave to amend.”) The dismissal is without prejudice to 18 || Plaintiff to pursue his claims in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 25cv1846-AJB (AHG). □□□□□□□□□□□ 19 || Motion to proceed IFP [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot. 20 The Clerk of Court shall close the case and enter judgment accordingly. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: January 5, 2026 / ; Tid. Nd ly x 23 Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz 4 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 3 □□