Scrase v. Sten et al

Filing 22

ORDER DISMISSING CASE; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 8/30/10. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2010)

Scrase v. Sten et al

Doc. 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 JUDITH SCRASE, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTIAN STEN; FRANK KENT; DOES 1-10, Defendants. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 10-2189 WHA (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(Docket No. 2, 7, 18)

This civil rights complaint was filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by a plaintiff proceeding pro se. She has also applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Although the complaint relates to an arrest in California, plaintiff currently resides in Nevada, and it appears from her complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis that she is no longer incarcerated. As a consequence, she is not subject to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. 1915, 1915A. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Christian Sten, a police officer, improperly arrested her, and she makes no allegations against the other defendants. Plaintiff has raised these same allegations in a previous in forma pauperis complaint, however. See Scrase v. Sten, No. C 101769 WHA (PR). An in forma pauperis complaint repeating the same factual allegations asserted in an earlier case, as here, even if now filed against new defendants, is therefore subject to dismissal as duplicative. Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissing duplicative complaint

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)). Plaintiff's claims are accordingly DISMISSED as duplicative of the claims raised in her earlier case. Good cause appearing, the applications to proceed in forma pauperis (docket numbers 2 & 18) are GRANTED. The motion for appointment of counsel (docket number 7) is DENIED in light of the dismissal of this action. The order setting an initial case management conference and ADR deadlines is VACATED. The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 30 , 2010.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.10\SCRASE2189.DSM.wpd

2