Flournoy v. Marin County Sheriff Department

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Flournoy v. Marin County Sheriff Department

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES HENRY FLOURNOY, P00154293, Case No. 23-cv-00514-CRB (PR)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v.

10 MARIN COUNTY SHERIFF DEP’T, et al., 11 Defendant(s).

12 Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Marin County Jail (MCJ) facing probation revocation 13 proceedings on prior criminal convictions (as well as pretrial proceedings on new criminal charges 14 in Marin County Superior Court and other jurisdictions) and a frequent litigant in federal court, 15 has filed a pro se complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

claiming denial of due process in connection 16 with his placement and retention in “disciplinary isolation” upon his arrival at MCJ in late 17 December 2022 based solely on his pending criminal charges and not on any sort of prison 18 disciplinary violation. ECF No. 1 (Compl.) at 3. Plaintiff raised the same allegations in a prior 19 prisoner complaint, which was dismissed with leave to amend and is still pending. See Flournoy 20 v. Marin County, No. 23-cv-00290-CRB (PR) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2023) (order of dismissal with 21 leave to amend). 22 A prisoner complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be 23 considered abusive and dismissed under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Cf. Cato v. United 24 States,

70 F.3d 1103

, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Bailey v. Johnson,

846 F.2d 1019, 1021

(5th 25 Cir. 1988)) (duplicative in forma pauperis complaint may be considered abusive and dismissed 26 under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

). Because plaintiff raised and is litigating the same allegations and claim 27 raised herein in Flournoy v. Marin County, No. 23-cv-00290-CRB (PR), the instant complaint is ] later-filed action does not compel a different result. See Bailey,

846 F.2d at 1021

(complaint 2 || repeating same allegations asserted in earlier case, even if now filed against new defendants, is 3 subject to dismissal as duplicative). 4 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED as duplicative under the authority 5 of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and the clerk is instructed to close the case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: April 4, 2023 8 2h CHARLES R. BREYER 9 United States District Judge 10 1] 12

2B

15 16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown