Hunter v. Attorney General State of California et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/20/2010 ORDERING that this action is dismissed as frivolous and all pending motions are denied. CASE CLOSED. (Matson, R)

(PC) Hunter v. Attorney General State of California et al

Doc. 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as the appointment of counsel. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. See E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b).
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LEROY D. HUNTER, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-0329 EFB P

ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

On February 8, 2010, plaintiff filed a complaint, initiating this action. Dckt. No. 1. On June 17, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which superceded the original complaint. Dckt. No. 7. The court's own records reveal that on June 17, 2010, plaintiff filed another complaint in this district, which contained virtually identical allegations to the amended complaint filed in this action. See Hunter v. High Desert State Prison, No. Civ. S-09-3504 MCE DAD, Dckt. Nos. 1 (December 18, 2009 original complaint), 14 (June 17, 2010 amended complaint).1 Due to its duplicative nature, the court will dismiss this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (allowing district courts to dismiss prisoner actions that are frivolous); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (A complaint that "merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims" may be dismissed as frivolous under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915). In accordance with the above, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is dismissed as frivolous and all pending motions are denied. Dated: July 20, 2010.

A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).
2

1