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.

BOBB v. FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

United States District Court, N.D. California


December 6, 2005.

JAMES CARL BOBB, Plaintiff,
v.
FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; RICHARD PIERCE, Fresno County sheriff; HAROLD McKINNY, former Fresno County sheriff; STEVE MAGARIAN, former Fresno County sheriff, Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff has filed three substantially similar complaints with this Court. The first, in Bobb v. Lewis, was dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Case No. C 03-4344 WHA (July 6, 2004 N.D. Cal.). The second, Bobb v. Fresno County Sheriff's Dep't, was dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata. Case No. C 04-3550 (Jan. 6, 2005 N.D. Cal.). This third complaint is functionally identical to those in the previous cases and therefore is DISMISSED for the same reasons.

Understood liberally, plaintiff, who is not represented by counsel, states that the instant case arises under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He alleges that his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth through Fourteenth amendments were violated. The complaint accuses defendants of using listening devices from about July 20, 1977, through September 16, 2005, to eavesdrop on him and to cause him epileptic seizures and heart failure (see Compl.). He alleged in his last case, No. C 04-3550, that the Fresno County Sheriff's Department had planted listening devices on him and that the equipment caused him epileptic seizures and heart failure. Complaint, No. C 04-3550 (Aug. 25, 2004 N.D. Cal.).

  The new complaint contains no new allegations. It fails to state a claim and is barred by res judicata. It is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is REJECTED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs is ORDERED not to file another complaint that is functionally identical to the three this Court already has rejected.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20051206

© 1992-2005 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.