Horn v. Foulk et al

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL with prejudice. Signed by Judge Susan Illston. (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2008) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2008: # 1 cs) (ys, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLIOT HORN, Plaintiff, v. ED FOULK; et al., Defendants. /

No. C 08-2546 SI (pr) ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The complaint in this action repeats claims made in Case No. C 08-2419 SI. In a letter filed in the earlier numbered case (docket #4 in C 08-2419), plaintiff wrote that the same complaint purposely was sent in twice ­ one from him and one from an acquaintance outside the hospital ­ to be sure that it reached the court. That is an ill-advised course of action, because it increases the expense for him (as a separate filing fee is owed for every case filed), delays the consideration of his case by increasing the overall workload at the court, and may cause limits on his ability to proceed as a pauper in future cases, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The complaint is frivolous because it is duplicative. 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) (duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious). The court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action at any time if it determines that the action "is frivolous or malicious." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B)(I). Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 29, 2008 _______________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge