From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brazell v. Muller

United States District Court, N.D. California
Mar 17, 2004
No. C 03-5831 MMC (PR) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2004)

Opinion

No. C 03-5831 MMC (PR)

March 17, 2004


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 duplicative.

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Brazell v. Muller

United States District Court, N.D. California
Mar 17, 2004
No. C 03-5831 MMC (PR) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2004)
Case details for

Brazell v. Muller

Case Details

Full title:EARL BRAZELL, Plaintiff, v. G.A. MULLER, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Mar 17, 2004

Citations

No. C 03-5831 MMC (PR) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2004)