Lopez v. Gee

Filing 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. In light of this dismissal, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and no fee is due. The Clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 3, 2005. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2005) Modified on 11/7/2005 (aaa, Court Staff).

Lopez v. Gee

Doc. 3

Case 3:05-cv-04333-MMC

Document 3

Filed 11/03/2005

Page 1 of 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 v. ALEXANDER LORENZO GEE, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VINCENT M. LOPEZ, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) N o . C 05-4333 MMC (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Order No. 2)

United States District Court

12
For the Northern District of California

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant. ____________________________ _ Plaintiff, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights complaint against Alexander Lorenzo Gee, his cellmate at PBSP. He alleges that Gee sexually harassed and threatened him in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The claims in the instant complaint are identical to the claims alleged by plaintiff in another action, which was dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. See Lopez v. Gee, No. C 05-2539 MMC (PR). A complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims is frivolous and may be dismissed sua sponte. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). As the claims in plaintiff's complaint are duplicative of the claims raised in plaintiff's earlier-filed case, the instant action is hereby DISMISSED as duplicative. In light of this dismissal, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and no fee is due. The Clerk shall close the file and terminate Docket No. 2. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 3, 2005 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

Dockets.Justia.com