Opinion
1:23-cv-00778-KES-EPG (PC)
07-31-2024
SEAN JEFFERY RICHSON-BEY, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM PALMER, ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE AND TO DENY MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS (DOCS. 10, 14)
Plaintiff Sean Richson-Bey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff generally claims that his ongoing criminal state court proceedings are not being conducted fairly, and he sues parties connected with that proceeding: three judges of the Kings County Superior Court, two deputy district attorneys, and a court-appointed counsel. Doc. 1. In addition to the complaint, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Supplemental Pleadings. Doc. 10. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302.
The assigned magistrate then issued findings and recommendations on February 27, 2024, that this case be dismissed as duplicative of Richson-Bey v. Palmer, No. 1:23-cv-463- JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2023), and, alternatively, as frivolous. Doc. 14 at 9 & n.3. The magistrate judge construed Plaintiff's Motion to File Supplemental Pleadings (Doc. 10) as a motion for leave to amend and recommended denying it as futile. (Doc. 14 at 1, 9.)
The Ninth Circuit has recognized that a duplicative suit is either frivolous or malicious, and thus the dismissal of such a suit qualifies as a strike within the meaning of the three strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing that a duplicative complaint is either frivolous or malicious); LeBlanc v. Asuncion, 699 Fed.Appx. 762 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that dismissal of duplicative complaint was properly deemed a strike) (citing Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2).
The court served the findings and recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 14 at 10.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time to do so has lapsed. See docket.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the court conducted a de novo review of this case.
Having carefully reviewed the entire action, the court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Pleadings (Doc. 10) is DENIED;
2. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 27, 2024 (Doc. 14) are ADOPTED in full.
3. All pending motions and deadlines are terminated, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.