Picart v. Gonzalez et al

1
25cv3364-BTM (DDL)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STEPHEN MARK PICART,
CDCR #G-67811,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Program Sergeants ALEJANDRO R.
GONZALEZ and SHADE WILLIAMS
and Correctional Officer RASHAD
RAINEY,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25cv3364-BTM (DDL)
ORDER:
(1) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
TO PROCEED IFP, and
(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
Plaintiff Stephen Mark Picart, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1-2.) Because the Complaint is duplicative of a Complaint
Plaintiff is currently litigating in this Court, it is subject to dismissal. The Court denies as
moot his IFP motion.
I. 	Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner, his Complaint requires a pre-answer screening
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), which provides that the Court must sua sponte dismiss
Case 3:25-cv-03364-BTM-DDL Document 5 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
25cv3364-BTM (DDL)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a prisoner’s complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d
1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010). 	Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action is subject to sua sponte
dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it is duplicative of another civil
action he filed in this Court which is currently pending. See Picart v. Gonzalez, et al., S.D.
Cal. Civil Case No. 25cv1846-AJB (AHG). 	In fact, the body of the two complaints
containing their allegations are identical photocopies. 	(Compare ECF No. 1 at 3-5 with
Compl. filed July 16, 2025 [ECF No. 1] at 3-5 in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 25cv1846-AJB
(AHG).) A court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without
the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”
Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff alleges in both cases that while attending a computer class at the Richard J.
Donovan Correctional Facility on July 25, 2023, Defendant Program Sergeant Gonzalez
placed him in hand restraints and escorted him to a holding tank; after waiting several
hours, Picart became lightheaded because he had not eaten, told Gonzalez he was
lightheaded, and while in hand restraints reached for his walker so he could sit down to eat
lunch. (ECF No. 1 at 3-4; Compl. [ECF No. 1] at 3-4 in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 25cv1846-
AJB (AHG).) Picart alleges that after Gonzalez “said something,” Gonzalez and the other
two Defendants, Program Sergeant Williams and Correctional Officer Rainey, “grabbed
and slammed [him] to the floor” while he was still cuffed and “gasping for air due to [a]
chemical agent (pepper spray) being activate[d] in a very close proximity.” (ECF No. 1 at
4; Compl. [ECF No. 1] at 4 in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 25cv1846-AJB (AHG).) 	Picart
further alleges Gonzalez, Williams and Rainey “would not let [him] get up from the pool
of the chemical agent,” and refused to permit him to him to “rise up and catch his breath”
for approximately 2-3 minutes while they applied leg restraints for unknown reasons. (ECF
No. 1 at 5; Compl. [ECF No. 1] at 5 in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 25cv1846-AJB (AHG).)
Thus, Plaintiff is bringing the same claims against the same defendants in both cases. On
October 14, 2025, the Court in Plaintiff’s first-filed case granted him leave to proceed IFP,
Case 3:25-cv-03364-BTM-DDL Document 5 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
25cv3364-BTM (DDL)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons, and ordered the United States Marshal to
effect service of the summons and complaint. 	(See Order filed 10/14/25 [ECF No. 4] in
S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 25cv1846-AJB (AHG).)
A district court has discretion to dismiss a prisoner’s claims under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) “that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United
States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). Because Plaintiff is currently litigating the
same claims presented in this action against the same defendants as he is in S.D. Cal. Civil
Case No. 25cv1846-AJB (AHG), the Court dismisses this case without leave to amend.
Id.; Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[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.”),
overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).
II. 	Conclusion and Order
The Court 	DISMISSES 	the Complaint as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b). Since leave to amend would be futile, the dismissal is without leave to amend.
See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Futility of amendment can, by
itself, justify the denial of . . . leave to amend.”) 	The dismissal is without prejudice to
Plaintiff to pursue his claims in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 25cv1846-AJB (AHG). Plaintiff’s
Motion to proceed IFP [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot.
The Clerk of Court shall close the case and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-03364-BTM-DDL Document 5 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3