United States District Court, D. Hawaii
WILLIAM D. CHAVEZ, #A6027516, Plaintiff,
HAWAII DEP'T OF PUBLIC SAFETY, WARDEN TODD THOMAS, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND
Derrick K. Watson, United States District Judge.
the Court is pro se Plaintiff William D. Chavez's
prisoner civil rights complaint and Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner (“IFP Application”).
ECF Nos. 1 and 2. Chavez is a Hawaii state prisoner who is
incarcerated at the Saguaro Correctional Center
(“SCC”) located in Eloy, Arizona. He alleges that
the Hawaii Department of Public Safety (“DPS”)
and SCC Warden Todd Thomas violated his civil rights by
allowing him to be exposed to Valley Fever at SCC several
years ago, and then failing to transfer him to a safer
environment or provide him adequate medical treatment.
Compl., ECF No. 1.
IFP Application is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with
prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
IFP application lacks signed certification from a prison
official showing the (1) amount currently in his prison
account, and (2) deposits in and withdrawals from his prison
account for the preceding six months. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(2). Chavez's IFP Application is therefore
DENIED as incomplete.
court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer, or
employee of a governmental entity, and must dismiss a
complaint or a portion thereof if the prisoner has raised
claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,
” fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a-b).
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual
allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). Moreover, a plaintiff must demonstrate that each
defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his
or her rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934
(9th Cir. 2002).
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman,
680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
states that he has brought only one other action in the
federal courts, Chavez v. Thomas, No.
2:19-cv-05170-PHX-JAT-JZB (D. Ariz, filed Sept. 13, 2019),
prior to this one. See Compl., ECF No. 1, at PageID
#3. The federal court case database, PACER Case Locator,
however, reveals that Chavez commenced another action in the
District of Arizona on October 9, 2019, Chavez v. Thomas,
et al., No. 2:19-cv-05388-PHX-JAT-JZB (D. Ariz.).
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov. The complaint in
No. 2:19-cv-05388 was signed on the same date as the present
Complaint, September 23, 2019. Moreover, Chavez alleges
identical claims against Warden Thomas and DPS in both of
these cases, regarding his exposure to Valley Fever at SCC in
or about 2017, and Defendants' alleged failure to provide
him adequate medical care and a safe environment thereafter.
court may dismiss a complaint or individual claims when the
complaint or claims are duplicative of claims brought in
another case. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d
1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding there is no abuse of
discretion in dismissing action as frivolous when a complaint
“merely repeats pending or previously litigated
claims”); see also McWilliams v. State of
Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997)
(“Repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes
of action may be dismissed under § 1915 as frivolous or
malicious.”) (quotation omitted); Cooper v.
Delo, 997 F.2d 376, 377 (8th Cir. 1993) (same);
Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.
1988) (affirming dismissal of a prisoner's civil rights
suit as duplicative even though the second suit named
different defendants); Peoples v. Reno, 2000 WL
1477502, *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 26, 2000).
Chavez has already filed an action in the District of
Arizona, with identical claims as those presented in this
action, the Court dismisses this action as clearly
duplicative of the claims brought in Chavez, No.
2:19-cv-05388 (D. Ariz.), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b). See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2.