Wilkes v. HCCC Jail Hilo, 1:11-cv-00039

Wilkes, a pro se prisoner, filed a prisoner civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the District of Hawaii on January 19, 2011.
He named HCCC, the Nurses Office, “Head Doctors,” and Glen Hara, Judge of the Hawaii circuit court, as defendants.
The court granted IFP status and screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915(A)(b)(1).
Wilkes alleged three claims: denial of dental care (Count I), non-allergenic religious diet (Count II), and medical care for a back injury due to prison conditions.
The court found the action duplicative of a prior case, Civ. No. 10-00748, and concluded amendment would be futile, dismissing with prejudice as frivolous.
The order notes that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the dismissal may count as a “strike” against Wilkes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the claims duplicative of prior litigation?	Wilkes contends the same harms are alleged in both actions.	The present claims duplicate those in Civ. No. 10-00748 and are frivolous.	Dismissed with prejudice as duplicative and frivolous.
Should the complaint be dismissed as frivolous under 1915A(b)(1)?	Not specified in the record; plaintiff seeks relief for asserted harms.	The claims are legally frivolous and fail to state a claim.	Dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.
Does the dismissal count as a strike under 1915(g)?	Not asserted here; argument not necessary.	Dismissal may constitute a strike under § 1915(g).	Action may be counted as a strike under § 1915(g).

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (affords leeway for amendment by pro se prisoners in screening sua sponte)
Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court may dismiss frivolous repetitive actions under § 1915)