United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
Michael H. Simon United States District Judge.
an inmate at the Columbia River Correctional Institution,
brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. In a separate Order, the Court has granted Plaintiff
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, for the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Complaint is on the
basis that it is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
alleges that he suffered an injury to his upper back and neck
while exercising, and that Defendants have been deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that
despite his chronic spinal condition, Defendants have
repeatedly denied him proper medication and an MRI. Plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages of $750, 000 and punitive damages
of $1, 500, 000.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court is required to screen
prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental
entity, officer, or employee and must dismiss a complaint if
the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). In order to state a claim,
Plaintiff's Complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter which, when accepted as true, gives rise to a
plausible inference that defendants violated plaintiff's
constitutional rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 554, 556-57 (2007). "Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
at 1949. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the
Court construes his pleadings liberally and affords him the
benefit of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007); Ortez, 88 F.3d at 806.
not the first federal case Plaintiff has filed pertaining to
prison officials' alleged refusal to provide him with
proper treatment for his neck and back injury. Prior to
filing this lawsuit, on July 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed
Williams v. Angelozzi, 3:18-cv-01213-SI, stating
that he suffered an injury to his upper back and neck and,
while an x-ray revealed that he had a spinal narrowing
condition, prison officials denied his request for an MRI and
pain medication. Although Plaintiff labeled the civil lawsuit
as one seeking habeas corpus relief, the Court construed the
action as a prisoner civil rights case arising under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. It advised Plaintiff of the proper
pleading standards for his civil rights challenge and allowed
him leave to file an amended pleading which is currently due
September 27, 2018.
lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma
pauperis are subject to dismissal as either frivolous or
malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See e.g.,
Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105
n.2 (9th Cir. 1995);. McWilliams v. State of Colo.,
121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997); Pittman v.
Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey
v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988).
"[I]n assessing whether the second action is duplicative
of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and
relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the
action, are the same." Adams v. California Dept. of
Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007);
see also Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d
221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (a suit is duplicative of another
"if the claims, parties, and available relief do not
significantly differ between the two actions. ").
Plaintiff brings two civil rights cases that challenge the
same decisions denying his desired medical care related to
the same injury, the latter case is subject to dismissal on
the basis that it is duplicative of the first and, therefore,
frivolous. This dismissal does not prevent Plaintiff from
continuing to litigate 3:18-cv-01213-SI.
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's
Complaint (#2) is DISMISSED as frivolous. The dismissal is
without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to continue to
for the reasons set forth above, this Court certifies that
any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
See 28 U.S.C. ...