1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RIGOBERTO SALIDO, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00561-JES-BLM CDCR #AY-0083, 12 ORDER: (1) DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE vs. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1915A(b)(1) AND (2) DENYING JAMES HILL; 15 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO STEVEN STALLINGS; PROCEED IN FORMA 16 DOES 1‒10, PAUPERIS AS MOOT 17 Defendants. [ECF No. 2] 18 19 Plaintiff Rigoberto Salido, currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 20 Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 21 action pursuant to

, via U.S. Mail on March 7, 2025, together with a 22 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to

(a). (See ECF 23 Nos. 1, 2.) Because Plaintiff e-filed an identical Complaint against the same Defendants in 24 a separate civil rights action just one week before, the Court dismisses this second case 25 without prejudice as duplicative of the first and denies Plaintiff’s IFP motion in this case 26 as moot. 27 SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 28 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the 1 Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who 2 is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the 3 terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as 4 soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays filing 5 fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Pursuant to this provision of 6 the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints which “seek[] redress from 7 a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” and to dismiss 8 those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim 9 upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief from a defendant who 10 is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1)-(2); Resnick v. Hayes,

, 446‒47 11 (9th Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown,

, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). “The purpose 12 of § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the 13 expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan,

, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) 14 (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,

(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 identical to another civil action he submitted to prison officials 17 at RJD for e-filing with the Clerk of the Court pursuant to S. D. Cal. General Order 653A 18 on February 28, 2025. See Salido v. Hill, et al., S.D. Cal. Case No. 3:25-cv-00502-AJB- 19 MMP (“Salido I”). A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within 20 and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to 21 matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan,

(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett 22 v. Medtronic, Inc.,

, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). The Complaints in both cases 23 are merely photocopies of each other. Both suits name the same Defendants, allege the 24 same causes of action, request the same relief, and are signed by Plaintiff on the same 25 day—February 26, 2025. (Compare ECF No. 1, with Salido I, Compl., ECF No. 1.) 26 A prisoner’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915A(b)(1) if it “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United 28 States,

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

(d)) 1 || (citation omitted). “[I]n assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, [the 2 ||court must] examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties 3 || or privies to the action, are the same.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs.,

, 4 |1689 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell,

, 904 5 ||(2008). Because the same claims presented in the instant action against the same 6 ||Defendants are currently pending before Judge Battaglia in Salido I, and nothing in the 7 ||record of either case suggests Plaintiff intended to commence two separate identical civil 8 || actions, this subsequently-filed case may not concurrently proceed. See Cato,

|| 1105 n.2; Resnick,

n.1. 10 CONCLUSION 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED as 12 duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In 13 || Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot. The dismissal of this case shall operate 14 || without prejudice to Plaintiff's pursuit of his claims in S.D. Cal. Case No. 3:25-cv-00502- 15 || AJB-MMP, and shall not be counted as a future “strike” against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 16 1915(g). Plaintiff is advised that any and all future pleadings related to Plaintiff's claims 17 against the named Defendants and submitted for consideration by the Court must include 18 Cal. Case No. 3:25-cv-00502-AJB-MMP clearly in the caption to avoid further 19 ||confusion. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter a judgment of dismissal in S.D. 20 || Cal. Case No. 3:25-cv-00561-JES-BLM and close the file. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 33 Dated: March 27, 2025 “| ap SF mecars 24 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28