United States District Court, N.D. California
March 17, 2004.
EARL BRAZELL, Plaintiff,
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
The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.