MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Michael Ray Swanson brings this action against Defendant Veterans Affairs/Secretary. Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis [1]. Because Plaintiff has minimal income and assets, the Court grants the motion. However, for the reasons explained below, the Court dismisses the Complaint [2] with prejudice.
STANDARDS
A complaint filed in forma pauperis may be dismissed at any time, including before service of process, if the court determines that:
(B) the action or appeal-
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2);
see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (sua sponte dismissals under
section 1915 “spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering” complaints which are “frivolous, malicious, or repetitive”);
Lopez v.Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (
section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by inmates). A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.”
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325;
Jackson v. State of Ariz., 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).
As the Ninth Circuit has instructed, however, courts must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A pro se complaint “‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). A pro se litigant will be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff brings an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Compl., ECF 2. He alleges that exposure to toxic water at Camp Lejeune caused his cerebellar ataxia. Plaintiff contends that he was not treated fairly by the Oregon Department of Veteran Affairs when it determined that his records did not support a finding that his cerebellar ataxia resulted from exposure to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune. Plaintiff has filed three similar actions in federal court. 3:17-cv-01164-MO, ECF 1; 3:18-CV-02148-JR, ECF 1; 3:21-cv-00668-HZ, ECF 2.
Claim preclusion prevents Plaintiff from bringing this lawsuit for a fourth time. Claim preclusion is the legal principle that a plaintiff only gets one bite at the proverbial apple. In 2017, Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the United States government alleging that exposure to toxic water at Camp Lejeune caused his cerebellar ataxia. 3:17-cv-01164-MO, ECF 1. That case was before Judge Mosman. Judge Mosman considered the law and evidence presented by Plaintiff and the United States and granted the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment. Id. at ECF 63. Judge Mosman's ruling in that case was a final decision on the merits. Accordingly, his ruling prevents other judges and courts from considering lawsuits against the same defendant based on the same facts. Here, Plaintiff brings another lawsuit against the United States alleging that exposure to toxic water at Camp Lejeune caused his cerebellar ataxia. Claim preclusion bars Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff cannot bring another lawsuit against the same defendant premised on the same facts because of Judge Mosman's January 2019 decision. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice “the plaintiff is foreclosed from filing a suit again on the same claim or claims.” Dismissed with Prejudice, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed IFP [1] is granted. Plaintiff's Complaint [2] is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.