Gakuba v. Hollywood Video, Inc. et al

Filing 28

ORDER: The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint 24 without prejudice. No later than May 8, 2015, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in this matter that raises claims over which this Court has jurisdiction but that cann ot be raised in the pending action in the Eastern District of California. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint that comports with this Order by May 8, 2015, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing this matter. The Court also DENIES as moot Plaintiffs Motion 16 for Preliminary Injunction, Motion 17 for a PACER Fee Exemption, Motion 21 for Appointment of Counsel, and Second Motion 26 for Temporary Restraining Order. See attached 3 page Order for full text. Signed on 04/17/2015 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (bb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PETER GAKUBA,
Plaintiff,

3:15-cv-00496-BR
ORDER

v.
HOLLYWOOD VIDEO, INC., aka
Movie Gallery, dba Hollywood
Video/Movie Gallery Customer
Service; ERIC HOLDER, in his
official capacity as United
States Attorney General; LISA
MADIGAN, in her official capacity
as Illinois Attorney General,
Defendants.

BROWN, Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion
(#16) for Preliminary Injunction, Motion (#17) for a PACER Fee
Exemption, Motion (#21) for Appointment of Counsel, and Second
Motion (#26) for Temporary Restraining Order.

1 - ORDER

After reviewing Plaintiff’s Motions and other filings, the
Court notes Plaintiff is presently litigating identical claims in
the Eastern District of California:
LLC, No. 2:15-cv-00630-MCE-AC.

Gakuba v. Hollywood Video,

Because Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint (#24) merely repeats claims that are pending in another
district, the Court dismisses this in forma pauperis action
without prejudice.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

See also Cato v.

United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995)(explaining
a district court may dismiss an in forma pauperis action under
§ 1915 when the complaint “merely repeats pending or previously
litigated claims.”)(citations omitted); Barker v. Fugazzi, 18 F.
App’x 663, 664-65 (9th Cir. Sep. 17, 2001).

CONCLUSION
For these reasons the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint (#24) without prejudice.

No later than May 8,

2015, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in this matter that
raises claims over which this Court has jurisdiction but that
cannot be raised in the pending action in the Eastern District of
California.

If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint that

comports with this Order by May 8, 2015, the Court will enter a
judgment dismissing this matter.
The Court also DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion (#16) for
Preliminary Injunction, Motion (#17) for a PACER Fee Exemption,
2 - ORDER

Motion (#21) for Appointment of Counsel, and Second Motion (#26)
for Temporary Restraining Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 17th day of April, 2015.

/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER