1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY EARL TROTTER, Case No.: 24cv2252-RHS (JLB) CDCR #BC-6851, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 vs. (1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 14 AS DUPLICATIVE PURSUANT

15 TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al., 16 Defendants. (2) DENYING MOTION TO 17 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT 18 19 20 Bobby Earl Trotter (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil 21 rights action pursuant to

. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Trotter alleges his 22 constitutional rights were violated during Los Angeles County Superior Court criminal 23 proceedings and is suing the county, superior court, and the attorneys who prosecuted and 24 defended him there.

. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma 25 Pauperis pursuant to

(a). See ECF No. 2. 26 The Complaint in this case is an identical photocopy of a Complaint filed in this 27 Court on November 20, 2024, which was transferred for lack of venue to the District Court 28 for the Central District of California, Western Division, on December 4, 2024. See Compl., 1 || ECF No. 1 and Order of Transfer, ECF No. 4, in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv2200-AGS 2 || (MSB). Both suits name the same Defendants, allege the same causes of action, request the 3 same relief, and are signed by Plaintiff on the same day, November 18, 2024, with identical 4 ||signatures. Compare S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv2200-AGS (MSB), Compl., ECF No. 5 || 1, with, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv2252-RSH (JLB), Compl., ECF No. 1. 6 A prisoner’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 7 1915A(b)(1) if it “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United 8 || States,

, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former

(d)). 9 || “[I]n assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether 10 causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the 11 ||same.” Adams v. Cal. Dep ’t of Health Servs.,

, 689 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled 12 || on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell,

(2008). Because the same claims 13 presented in the instant action against the same Defendants are currently pending in the 14 || previously-filed case, this subsequently-filed duplicative action may not concurrently 15 || proceed. See Cato,

n.2. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED 17 || without prejudice as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and □□□□□□□□□□□ 18 || Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot. The dismissal of 19 ||this case shall operate without prejudice to Plaintiff's pursuit of his claims in his 20 || previously-filed case. The Clerk will TERMINATE this case and close the file. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: December 17, 2024 fekut G Low 23 Hon. RobertS.Huie A United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 2