Ivan Goodlow, Jr. v. Mr. Valdez
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint and found it duplicative of a previously filed, pending action involving the same defendant and nearly identical facts. The court dismissed the action as frivolous 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 frivolous/duplicative“Accordingly, because the Court finds this case, Goodlow II, Case No. 3:26-cv-1259-RBM-LR to be duplicative of Goodlow I, it is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the PLRA screening statute. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), a court must dismiss a prisoner complaint that is frivolous. The Ninth Circuit has held that a complaint is frivolous if it merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims (Cato v. United States). The order recites that the current complaint alleges the same excessive force incident against the same defendant as a pending case (Goodlow I). Because the claims are duplicative of a pending action, dismissal is the proper procedural mechanism to prevent redundant litigation. The court also correctly noted that the plaintiff can pursue his claim in the pending case. |
Denial of motion to proceed in forma pauperis“(2) DENIES the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) as moot.” | agree with court Because the underlying action was dismissed, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which is ancillary to the action, becomes moot. This is a standard procedural consequence of dismissal. |
Certification that IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith“(3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).” | agree with court The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (cited in the order as U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), a minor citation error but the intent is clear). When dismissing a case as frivolous under § 1915A, the court must certify whether an appeal would be taken in good faith. Given the duplicative nature of the claim, which is a clear procedural bar, an appeal would likely not be in good faith. The court's certification is consistent with the dismissal. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for screening (PLRA), applies the correct legal standard for duplicative claims (Cato), and supports its factual finding of duplication by comparing the two complaints. The court properly took judicial notice of the pending case (Bias). The dismissal is appropriate because the plaintiff has a pending case for the same claim. The denial of IFP as moot and the certification against an IFP appeal are standard and correct consequences.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN GOODLOW, JR., Case No.: 3:26-cv-1259-RBM-LR CDCR# AX-3970, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 vs. (1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION AS 14 DUPLICATIVE PURSUANT TO 28 MR. VALDEZ, 15 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) AND Defendant. 16 (2) DENYING MOTION TO 17 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT [Doc. 2] 18 19 20 Plaintiff Ivan Goodlow (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 21 civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a motion to proceed in 22 forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Docs. 1, 2.) Because Plaintiff has raised the same claim against 23 the same Defendant in a prior civil rights action that is still pending in S.D. Cal. Civil Case 24 No. 3:26-cv-1008-JES-MMP, the Court dismisses this case as duplicative and frivolous, 25 and denies the IFP motion as moot. 26 I. SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 27 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the 28 Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who 1 is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the 2 terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as 3 soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays filing 4 fees or moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). 5 Pursuant to this provision of the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints 6 which “seek[] redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental 7 entity,” and to dismiss those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or 8 fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief 9 from a defendant who is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1)–(2); Resnick v. Hayes, 10 213 F.3d 443, 446–47 (9th Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 11 2011). “The purpose of § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious 12 suits need not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 13 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 14 (7th Cir. 2012)). 15 Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1915A(b)(1) because it is duplicative of another civil action Plaintiff previously filed on 17 February 9, 2026 and is currently pending in this Court. See Goodlow v. Valdez, S.D. Cal. 18 Civil Case No. 3:26-cv-1008-JES-MMP (“Goodlow I”). A court “‘may take notice of 19 proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those 20 proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 21 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 22 2002)). 23 In Goodlow I, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Valdez used excessive force against him 24 on March 6, 2025. See Goodlow I, Doc. 1 at 3. On May 16, 2026, the Court granted 25 Plaintiff’s IFP motion in Goodlow I and directed U.S. Marshal service of the complaint. 26 Goodlow I, Doc. 5. A summons issued the same day. Goodlow I, Doc. 6. 27 On February 23, 2026, two weeks after filing his complaint in Goodlow I, Plaintiff 28 initiated this case (“Goodlow II”) by filing another complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1 alleging Defendant Valdez used excessive force against him on March 6, 2026. (Doc. 1.) 2 The facts alleged in this case are nearly identical to those alleged in Goodlow I. 3 As pleaded, the Court finds Plaintiff’s claim in the instant case, Goodlow II, are 4 duplicative of the claim alleged in Goodlow I. The two cases contain the same allegations, 5 against the same defendant. Compare Goodlow I, Case No. 3:26-cv-1008-JES-MMP, Doc. 6 1 at 3, with Goodlow II, Case No. 3:26-cv-1259-RBM-LR, Doc. 1 at 3. A prisoner’s 7 complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it “merely repeats 8 pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th 9 Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and internal quotations 10 omitted). Thus, the Court finds the instant action to be duplicative of Goodlow v. Valdez, 11 et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:26-cv-1008-JES-MMP. As such, dismissal of this 12 duplicative and subsequently filed civil case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) is 13 warranted. See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1; see also Adams v. 14 Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n assessing whether 15 the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and 16 relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.”), overruled on 17 other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). As noted above, on May 18 26, 2026, the Court directed U.S. Marshal service of the complaint in Goodlow I. Thus, to 19 proceed with his claim, he may do so as directed by the Court in Goodlow I, 3:26-cv-1008- 20 JES-MMP, Docs. 5–6. 21 Accordingly, because the Court finds this case, Goodlow II, Case No. 3:26-cv-1259- 22 RBM-LR to be duplicative of Goodlow I, it is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(b)(1). 24 II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 25 Good cause appearing, the Court: 26 (1) DISMISSES this civil action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915A(b)(1). 28 (2) DENIES the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) as moot. 1 (3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 3 (4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter a judgment of dismissal in this case, 4 ||S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:26-cv-1259-RBM-LR, and to close the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: May 29, 2026 FR a ? l > HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VAL .. 1DENDDVATD