Opinion

1 ` 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAYNE WARD, Case No.: 25-cv-03341-AJB-DDL CDCR #BK-3300, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS vs. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1915A(b)(1) AND DENYING J. LOVELL; E. GUEVARA; 15 LEAVE TO PROCEED C. MARTINEY; R. ALLEN; IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 J. MAGNAR, AS MOOT 17 Defendants. [Doc. Nos. 2, 3] 18 19 20 Plaintiff Wayne Ward, currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional 21 Facility (“RJD”), and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint (“Compl.”) 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal 23 Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).1 (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff has also filed copies of 24 25 1 While Plaintiff used the Court’s form Bivens civil rights complaint, all Defendants are alleged to be state 26 officials employed by RJD, not federal prison officials. (See Doc. No. 1 at 1.) Because a Bivens action may not be maintained against state officials, and Plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights 27 by state actors, the Court liberally construes his complaint as if it were filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting court’s duty to construe pro se prisoner’s 28 1 his CDCR Inmate Statement Reports, as well as a prison certificate authorized by a RJD 2 senior accounting officer, which the Court construes as requests to proceed in forma 3 pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. Nos. 2; 3.) Because Plaintiff raised the same claims against the 4 same Defendants in a prior civil rights action, however, the Court dismisses this case as 5 frivolous and denies Plaintiff’s requests to proceed IFP as moot. 6 I. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 7 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the 8 Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who 9 is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the 10 terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as 11 soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays filing 12 fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Pursuant to this provision of 13 the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints which “seek[] redress from 14 a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” and to dismiss 15 those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim 16 upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief from a defendant who 17 is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1)–(2); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446–47 18 (9th Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). “The purpose 19 of § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the 20 expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) 21 (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)). 22 Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(b)(1) because it is duplicative of another civil action he previously filed and had 24 dismissed in this Court. See Ward v. Lovell, No. 3:24-CV-1400-RSH-MSB, 2025 WL 25 2677395, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2025) (“Ward I”). A court “‘may take notice of 26 27 Guerrero v. So, No. 3:20-CV-01117-GPC-MSB, 2020 WL 6449194, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2020) 28 1 proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those 2 proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 3 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 4 2002)). 5 In Ward I, Plaintiff named as Defendants the same five RJD prison officials as he 6 does in this case, claiming that on January 15, 2023, they “use[d] excessive force on [him]” 7 by poking him in the shoulder, confronting him in the dayroom, and either slapping, 8 slinging, or throwing him into a stationary bench. See Compl. at 1, 2; cf. Ward I, 2025 WL 9 2677395, at *1. Plaintiff further claims the same RJD officials refused to provide him 10 medical care afterward. See Compl. at 3; cf. Ward I, 2025 WL 2677395, at *1. On May 7, 11 2025, and again on September 8, 2025, Judge Huie screened Plaintiff’s pleadings in Ward 12 I, but dismissed them sua sponte and in their entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 13 §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. See Ward I, 2025 WL 14 2677395, at *3 (Doc. No. 9); id., Doc. No. 7. 15 Plaintiff later submitted his Bivens complaint to the Clerk of the Court in this case 16 on November 21, 2025, again seeking to sue RJD Officers Lovell, Guevarra, Martiney, 17 Allen, and Magnar, and again claiming they used excessive force against him on January 18 15, 2023, by “throw[ing] [him] into a stationary bench of the dayroom,” and telling him he 19 would “receive medical care later,” which “never happened.” See Compl. at 2, 3. Plaintiff’s 20 complaint was assigned to this Court as Case No. 3:25-cv-3341-AJB-DDL (hereafter 21 “Ward II”). But except for the fact that he now seeks to proceed under Bivens in Ward II 22 instead of under § 1983, as pleaded, the Court finds his claims are nevertheless identical to 23 those previously alleged and dismissed in Ward I. The two cases, both filed in the Southern 24 District of California, name the same Defendants, allege the same constitutional violations 25 arising from the same January 15, 2023 incident at RJD, and are filed by the same Plaintiff. 26 Compare Ward I, Doc. Nos. 1, 8, with Ward II, Doc. No. 1. A prisoner’s complaint is 27 considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it “merely repeats pending or 28 previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) 1 ||(construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and internal quotations omitted). 2 || Because Plaintiff has already brought and had dismissed the same claims presented in the 3 ||instant action against the same Defendants in Ward v. Lovell, No. 3:24-CV-1400-RSH- 4 ||MSB, 2025 WL 2677395, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2025), dismissal of this duplicative 5 subsequently filed civil case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) is warranted. See 6 || Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1; see also Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of 7 || Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n assessing whether the second 8 || action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, 9 well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.”), overruled on other grounds 10 || by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). 11 Conclusion 12 Good cause appearing, the Court DISMISSES this civil action as frivolous pursuant 13 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), DENIES Plaintiffs leave to proceed IFP (Doc. Nos. 2, 3) as 14 |}moot, CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 15 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), and DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter a judgment of dismissal 16 || and to close the file. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: March 17, 2026 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4