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.

Cedric Greene v. M. Brhel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 10, 2010

CEDRIC GREENE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
M. BRHEL, DEFENDANT.

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that he is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security therefor. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Determining plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.

On April 15, 2009, plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint, initiating this action. Dckt. No. 1. The court's own records reveal that on January 26, 2009, plaintiff filed another complaint in this district, which contained virtually identical allegations to the complaint filed in this action. See Greene v. Board of Prison Terms, No. Civ. S-09-0229 LKK DAD, Dckt. Nos. 1 (January 26, 2009 original complaint), 7 (November 18, 2009 amended complaint).*fn1

Due to its duplicative nature, the court will dismiss this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (allowing district courts to dismiss prisoner actions that are frivolous); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (a complaint that "merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims" may be dismissed as frivolous under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed as frivolous;

2. All pending motions are denied; and

3. The Clerk is directed to close the case.


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.