IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 15, 2010
JOSEPH ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF,
JEFF CUNAN,*FN1 DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, paid the filing fee on November 12, 2010 despite three pending motions to proceed in forma pauperis. Those motions are denied as moot.
Upon review of plaintiff's complaint and examination of the court's files, the undersigned is aware of two actions previously filed by plaintiff in this court that were dismissed. See Robinson v. State of California, No. 2:04-cv-1888-GEB-DAD; Robinson v. Cunan, 09-cv-3045-GEB-KJN. The allegations and defendant in the instant complaint are substantially identical to plaintiff's complaint in case No. 09-cv-3045, which was dismissed with prejudice on May 10, 2010.
"[I]f a court is on notice that it has previously decided the issue presented, the court may dismiss the action sua sponte, even though the defense has not been raised," Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 416 (2000), provided that the parties have an opportunity to be heard prior to dismissal, Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2005). "As a general matter, a court may, sua sponte, dismiss a case on preclusion grounds 'where the records of that court show that a previous action covering the same subject matter and parties had been dismissed.'" Id. at 1054-55 (quoting Evarts v. W. Metal Finishing Co., 253 F.2d 637, 639 n.1 (9th Cir. 1058)).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's requests to proceed in forma pauperis are denied as moot; and
2. Within sixty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed.