Pittman v. Rees
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-07143
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Pittman v. Rees, Judge White dismissed a duplicative prisoner civil-rights case seeking federal witness protection.
Randy Dewayne Pittman’s action was dismissed, ending this case against Robert David Rees and the other named defendants; the court directed that judgment be entered and the file closed.
What happened
Randy Dewayne Pittman, a Santa Rita County Jail inmate representing himself, sued Robert David Rees and others over his request for placement in the federal witness protection program. The defendants included federal prosecutors and officials from the United States Marshals Service and Bureau of Prisons.
The court found that the complaint repeated allegations and requested relief already pending in a prior related case involving Pittman. During required screening of a prisoner complaint, the court considered the repeated claims frivolous and dismissed the action.
In Pittman v. Rees, Judge Jeffrey S. White dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and ordered the file closed.
The detailed version
- Pittman v. Rees · No. 4:22-cv-07143
- Jeffrey White
- Nov. 18, 2022
Background
Randy Dewayne Pittman, an inmate in the Santa Rita County Jail, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer. He sued the United States Attorney General, several Assistant United States Attorneys, and officials in the United States Marshals Service and Bureau of Prisons. He sought placement in the federal witness protection program.
The court stated that Pittman's complaint duplicated allegations and requested relief in a motion pending in a prior related civil-rights case. The court identified that earlier case by docket number, No. C 22-3806 VKD (PR), without resolving the merits of the witness-protection request in this action.
Screening and Disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, federal courts screen prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or officials. The court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. Because the complaint repeated claims pending in another case, the court considered it frivolous and dismissed it.
The order states: "Accordingly, the instant action is DISMISSED under Section 1915A(a)." The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.