The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff Michael A. Leon, a resident of Arizona, who is proceeding without counsel, filed this action on April 29, 2013, alleging claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, libel and slander (defamation), and invasion of privacy/false light against defendant Pacific Scientific Energetic Materials Company/Pacific Scientific, a California entity, and other Doe defendants. (Dkt. No. 1.)*fn1 The complaint purportedly invokes the court's diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees, or in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2). Thereafter, on May 6, 2013, plaintiff filed motions for service by certified mail and for permission to e-file. (Dkt. Nos. 3, 4.)
Plaintiff's application in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the undersigned grants plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis.
The determination that a 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 that 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.
Although plaintiff's complaint is somewhat confusing and replete with religious quotes and references, plaintiff, whose career has ostensibly been in electronics aerospace, alleges that in January and February 2013, an individual named Fiona Greig, associated with either Boeing and/or Securaplane, falsely stated that plaintiff was a convicted felon, that he was fired for "internet usage e-mail," and that he set up certain faulty test setups. (See Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff claims that he suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification, emotional distress, and other harm as a result of these false statements. (Id.) As noted above, plaintiff asserts claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, libel and slander (defamation), and invasion of privacy/false light against defendant Pacific Scientific Energetic Materials Company/Pacific Scientific. (Id.) It is unclear exactly what the named defendant Pacific Scientific's connection with these allegations are.
Regardless, a review of the court's records reveals that the above-mentioned allegations are virtually identical to those contained in plaintiff's complaint filed in this court's Fresno division on February 25, 2013, in United States of America, ex rel. Michael A. Leon v. Meggitt PLC, et al., 1:13-cv-270-LJO-MJS, Dkt. No. 1. Although the earlier case involves additional claims and defendants, it includes the same claims against defendant Pacific Scientific Energetic Materials Company/Pacific Scientific that are asserted in this case, which in turn are based on the same factual allegations that are asserted in this case. This action is therefore duplicative of plaintiff's previously-filed action, and the court thus recommends that the action be dismissed on that basis. The court further recommends that plaintiff's remaining pending motions in this case be denied as moot.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS ALSO HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. The action be DISMISSED as duplicative.
2. Plaintiff's motions for service by certified mail and for permission to e-file (dkt. nos. 3, 4) be DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case and vacate all dates.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).