Opinion
Case No. 1:20-cv-00145-BLW
06-16-2020
ZACHARY TYLER ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. JAY CHRISTENSEN; JOSH TEWALT; EVAN PAGE; IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; TIM McKAY; GABRIELLA PEREZ; KATE BELTRAN; DANEL HUDON; STATE BOARD OF CORRECTION; TAYLOR WILSON; CPL. SHAPPEL MORRISON; LT. ALOU; LT. HUST; CPL. DRIGGS; DEFENDANT FRAUS; JILLIAN SCHLESTE; SARA HART; and OFFICER MULENEX, Defendants.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE
The Clerk of Court conditionally filed Plaintiff Zachary Tyler Allen's initial pleading as a result of Plaintiff's status as an inmate and in forma pauperis request. Plaintiff has since filed several amended complaints.
The Court now reviews the Fifth Amended Complaint to determine whether it or any of the claims contained therein should be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. Having reviewed the record, and otherwise being fully informed, the Court enters the following Order dismissing this case as malicious and revoking Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status.
1. Screening Requirement
The Court must review complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity, as well as complaints filed in forma pauperis, to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. The Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious claim, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b).
2. Discussion
Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint is identical to the operative pleading in another of Plaintiff's cases: Allen v. Tingey, Case No. 1:20-cv-00015-CWD (D. Idaho), in which Plaintiff has been allowed to proceed on several claims. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Fifth Amended Complaint is malicious and is intended solely to harass the defendants. See, e.g., Brinson v. McKeeman, 992 F. Supp. 897, 912 (D. Tex. 1997) ("It is malicious per se for a pauper to file successive in forma pauperis suits that duplicate claims made in other pending or previous lawsuits."); Scott v. Weinberg, 2007 WL 963990, at *12-13 (D. Wash. March 26, 2007) (malicious suits include those that are "attempts to vex, injure, or harass the defendants," that are "plainly abusive of the judicial process or merely repeat[] pending or previously litigated claims," or that can be characterized as "irresponsible or harassing litigation").
The Fifth Amended Complaint in this action is not the only duplicative complaint Plaintiff has filed in this Court. See Allen v. Hummer, Case No. 1:20-cv-00084-BLW (D. Idaho). --------
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend, and Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is REVOKED. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) & 1915A(b)(1).
DATED: June 16, 2020
/s/_________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge