Williams v. Navarro

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 25-cv-2432-BJC-GC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 14 OMAR NAVARRO; et al., MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND 15 Defendants. 16 (2) DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE 18 [ECF No. 1, 2] 19 20 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, field this complaint, ECF No. 1, along with an 21 application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No 2. For the reasons stated below, 22 Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED 23 without prejudice. 24 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 25 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 26 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 27 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 28 1 prepay the entire fee only if he or she is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court 3 may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of fees if the party 4 submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that he or she is unable to 5 pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 6 Here, Plaintiff states that he is currently unemployed and reports that his sole 7 monthly income consists of $220 in cash assistance and $200 in food stamps from state 8 welfare. ECF No. 2 at 1. He further represents that his monthly expenses include 9 approximately $100 for transportation and $400 for food. Id. Plaintiff also indicates that 10 he carries student loan debt totaling $60,000. Id. at 2. Based on the information provided, 11 the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the required filing fee. Accordingly, 12 Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED. 13 II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 14 The Court must subject each civil action commenced pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 15 1915(a) to mandatory screening and order the sua sponte dismissal of any case it finds 16 “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks 17 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 18 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he 19 provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 20 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only 21 permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a 22 claim). Accordingly, in light of the Court’s grant of IFP status to Plaintiff, it must conduct 23 a mandatory screening. 24 Section 1915(e)(2)(B) also authorizes dismissal of claims that are frivolous, 25 including those that merely repeat pending or previously litigated matters. See Cato v. 26 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). This reflects Congress’s concern 27 that “a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying 28 litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or 1 || repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 30 (1992) (quotation omitted). 2 Here, Plaintiff's Complaint is frivolous because it duplicates claims previously 3 || litigated in this Court. See Williams v. Navarro, 2018 WL 5112218 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 4 ||2018). On August 23, 2018, while incarcerated, Plaintiff filed the same Complaint in this 5 ||Court. Compare ECF No. 1 at 5-15, with Complaint at 4-14, Williams v. Navarro, No. 6 3:18-cv-1964 (S.D. Cal. August 23, 2018). The Court denied Plaintiff's motion to proceed 7 ||IFP and dismissed that action without prejudice, further certifying that any appeal would 8 frivolous and not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Ninth Circuit 9 || affirmed, expressly concluding that “this appeal is frivolous.” Williams vy. Navarro, 2021 10 || WL 359998 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2021). Despite those rulings, Plaintiff has now refiled the 11 ||}same Complaint, copying it verbatim from the prior action. Because the instant pleading 12 ||merely repeats previously litigated claims, it is dismissed as frivolous under § 13 1915(e)(2)(B). 14 It. CONCLUSION 15 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 16 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. ECF No. 1. M7 2. The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon 18 which relief can be granted. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended 19 complaint on or before June 6, 2026. 20 3. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: May 6, 2026 23 25 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 27 28 25-cv-2432-BJC-GC