Danny Ray Horning v. State of California, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se civil rights complaint filed by a state inmate alleging denial of a religious diet and found it to be an identical duplicate of a previously filed action. The court dismissed the current action 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) and Ninth Circuit precedent to dismiss the action. The order recites that the complaint is an identical photocopy of a previously filed complaint (Case No. 26-cv-1869-LL-DEB) with the same parties, claims, and relief. Under Cato v. United States and Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., a subsequent action that merely repeats pending claims is subject to dismissal. The dismissal is without prejudice, preserving the plaintiff's ability to pursue the claims in the pending case. |
Denial of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot” | agree with court Because the underlying action was dismissed, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis became moot. Denying the motion as moot is the standard procedural response when the case is no longer pending. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for dismissing duplicative prisoner actions under § 1915A(b)(1), cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Cato and Adams), and applies the facts (identical complaint, same parties, pending prior case) to reach the correct result. The dismissal is without prejudice, which is appropriate to avoid prejudicing the plaintiff's pending claims.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANNY RAY HORNING, Case No.: 26-cv-3242-AJB-MSB CDCR #J-48901, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 vs. (1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 14 AS DUPLICATIVE PURSUANT 15 TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 16 Defendants. (2) DENYING MOTION TO 17 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT 18 19 20 On May 18, 2026, Danny Ray Horning (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate proceeding pro 21 se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff 22 alleges his constitutional rights were violated when he was denied a religious diet while 23 incarcerated at the R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility from February 10, 2025, until the 24 present. (Id. at 1–5.) Plaintiff has also filed a copy of his prison trust account statement 25 which the Court construes as a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(a). (See Doc. No. 2.) 27 The Complaint in this case is an identical photocopy of a Complaint filed in this 28 Court on March 20, 2026. (See Doc. No. 1 in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 26-cv-1869- 1 ||_LL-DEB.) Both suits name the same Defendants, allege the same causes of action, request 2 || the same relief, and are signed by Plaintiff on the same day, January 5, 2026, with identical 3 || signatures. (Compare Doc. No. 1, with S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 26-cv-1869-LL-DEB, Doc. 4 1.) 5 A prisoner’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 6 || § 1915A(b)(1) if it “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United 7 || States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). 8 ||‘‘[I]n assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether 9 || the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the 10 ||same.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled 11 || on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). Because the same claims 12 || presented in the instant action against the same Defendants are currently pending in the 13 previously-filed case, this subsequently-filed duplicative action may not concurrently 14 || proceed. See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED 16 || without prejudice as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and □□□□□□□□□□□ 17 || Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot. The dismissal 18 this case shall operate without prejudice to Plaintiff's pursuit of his claims in his 19 || previously-filed case. The Clerk of Court will TERMINATE this case and close the file. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: July 23, 2026 © 22 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 2 a a