Allen v. Diaz
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a civil rights action filed by a pro se prisoner that appeared to be a duplicate of a previous case due to a clerical error in labeling the case number. The court ordered the action administratively closed without a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and directed the plaintiff to file his compliant IFP motion in the original case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Administrative closure of the action“The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to administratively close this matter.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the plaintiff's filings were intended for the prior case (Allen I) based on the timing and content of the IFP motion, which complied with the specific order issued in that case. Closing the duplicate action administratively is the appropriate procedural mechanism to resolve a clerical error that resulted in the opening of a new case number, preventing prejudice to the plaintiff while maintaining docket integrity. |
Determination that the closure does not constitute a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)“This matter will not constitute a “strike” for 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) purposes.” | agree with court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner may not proceed IFP if they have had three or more prior actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. An administrative closure of a duplicate case resulting from a clerical error is not a dismissal on the merits or for failure to state a claim. Therefore, it does not count as a strike. The court's determination is consistent with the statutory text and purpose. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the doctrine of judicial notice to the prior case file to determine the intent behind the filing. The distinction between an administrative closure and a dismissal for failure to state a claim is correctly applied to avoid an improper § 1915(g) strike. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the procedural anomaly.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES EDWARD ALLEN, Case No.: 21-CV-1188 JLS (JLB) CDCR # D-76353 12 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 RALPH DIAZ, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On June 28, 2021, Plaintiff Charles Edward Allen, a state prisoner proceeding pro 20 se, filed a civil rights action (ECF No. 1), along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma 21 Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2). 22 Plaintiff filed a previous action involving the same claims and same defendants on 23 April 6, 2021. See Allen v. Diaz, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:21-cv-00602-LAB-RBM 24 (“Allen I”). A court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and 25 without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at 26 issue.” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. 27 Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). 1 In Allen I, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP was denied on June 2, 2021, because he 2 ||had not submitted a trust account statement in support of his IFP motion that included all 3 trust account activity and balances for the 6-month period preceding the filing of that 4 ||/action. See Allen I, ECF No. 5 at 3. Plaintiff was granted forty-five (45) days to file a 5 renewed Motion to Proceed IFP that complied with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Id. at 4. 6 Plaintiff filed this action, which includes a Motion to Proceed IFP along with a trust 7 ||account statement that complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), within the timeframe 8 || permitted in the June 2, 2021, Order entered in Allen I. However, Plaintiff failed to label 9 || these pleadings with the proper case number and a separate action was opened. Thus, it 10 || appears that Plaintiff did not intend to file a new action but is, in fact, responding to the 11 || Order issued on June 2, 2021 in Allen I. 12 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to administratively close this matter. This 13 || matter will not constitute a “strike” for 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) purposes. Plaintiff cautioned 14 || that in order to proceed in Allen I, he must comply with the Court’s June 2, 2021, Order 15 || and correctly label all his future filings in A//en I with the proper case number. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: July 19, 2021 . tt f Le 18 on. Janis L. Sammartino 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27