Shai Alkebu-Lan v. Zachary Brown
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-06249
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Shai Alkebu-Lan v. Zachary Brown, Judge Tigar administratively closed the civil-rights case as filed in error because it duplicated another pending case.
Shai Alkebu-Lan and the defendants named in this action; the case was administratively closed, subject to a possible motion to reopen.
What happened
Shai Alkebu-Lan sued Zachary Brown and others under a federal civil-rights law. The complaint alleged sexual assault, interference with mail, and a conspiracy involving parole and medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic.
While this case was pending, Alkebu-Lan filed a separate case involving some of the same defendants and challenging the Board of Parole Hearings’ 2021 denial of parole-related relief. The court found that both cases challenged the same issue and that this case appeared duplicative.
Judge Jon S. Tigar administratively closed this case as filed in error. The court said Alkebu-Lan may ask to reopen it by addressing whether the case is duplicative or repetitive.
The detailed version
- Shai Alkebu-Lan v. Zachary Brown · No. 4:21-cv-06249
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 22, 2021
Background
Shai Alkebu-Lan, an incarcerated person at California Men’s Colony, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by state actors. The complaint named correctional officials and officials connected to the Board of Parole Hearings. It alleged that certain defendants sexually assaulted Alkebu-Lan or directed the assault, interfered with mail reporting the assault, and conspired to prevent parole and medical care as COVID-19 relief. The complaint sought money damages and other relief.
The case was filed in the Central District of California and later transferred to the Northern District of California at Alkebu-Lan’s request. Afterward, Alkebu-Lan filed a separate action in this court involving some of the same defendants. That separate action challenged the Board of Parole Hearings’ 2021 denial of parole-related relief and sought money damages, review of the parole decision, and other relief.
Court’s Analysis
The court compared the two complaints. It noted that both named Zachary Brown, although the other defendants differed. The court also noted that the cases sought somewhat different relief, but concluded that both challenged the same issue: the Board of Parole Hearings’ 2021 denial of parole. The court therefore found that this action appeared duplicative of the other case.
The court explained that duplicative or repetitive litigation may be dismissed as abusive under the statute governing cases filed without paying the filing fee. Because this action had the higher case number, the court presumed that it was the action filed in error.
Disposition
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered that the action be administratively closed as filed in error and directed the Clerk to close the case. The order did not state that the case was dismissed. It allowed Alkebu-Lan to file a motion to reopen if he believed the court had erred; that motion must address whether the action is duplicative or repetitive. The court also noted that Alkebu-Lan might not be eligible to proceed without paying the filing fee under 42 U.S.C. § 1915(g), based on a prior dismissal it identified, and said that issue would need to be addressed if the case were reopened and allowed to proceed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.