Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BRAZELL v. MULLER

United States District Court, N.D. California


March 17, 2004.

EARL BRAZELL, Plaintiff,
v.
G.A. MULLER, et al., Defendants

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MAXINE CHESNEY, District Judge

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California parolee proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil action on December 24, 2003. The allegations in the complaint are identical to the allegations in a complaint filed by plaintiff earlier that same date in Brazell v. Mullen et al., No. C 03-5830 MMC (PR). Indeed, the complaint in the instant action appears to be a photocopy of the earlier-filed complaint. A complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims 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 plaintiffs claims are raised in plaintiffs earlier case, there is no need for the instant case to proceed as an independent action.

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED as duplicative.

  The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending motions.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20040317

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.