Opinion
No. C-05-3883 MMC.
October 26, 2005
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
Before the Court is the complaint filed September 26, 2005 by plaintiff Robert Curtis, and his application, filed the same date, to proceed in this action in forma pauperis. On September 28, 2005, the Court ordered plaintiff to demonstrate why the instant action should not be dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), in light of his filing of numerous actions in the District of Oregon involving the same defendants, and the dismissal of those actions by the Honorable Owen Panner. On October 17, 2005, plaintiff filed a response to the Court's order, including therewith copies of the relevant complaints he filed in the District of Oregon. Having reviewed the papers filed by plaintiff, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Robert Curtis brings this action pro se. Plaintiff alleges that on September 25, 2000, he received notice from defendants that he was in default on a federal construction contract with the Bureau of Land Management, despite the fact that fifteen days remained under the contract. (See Compl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants Steven Shapiro, Elaine Brong, George Mansfield, Mansfield, Inc., Tom Doss, Randy Lopez, Insurance Company of the West, and the Bureau of Land Management breached the contract by finding plaintiff to be in default without providing adequate notice to plaintiff. (See Compl. ¶¶ 3-7, 20, 23.)
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that plaintiff has filed at least seventeen actions in the District of Oregon within the past two years, three of which were filed against the same set of defendants that he has sued in the instant action. See Curtis v. Brong, Case No. C-05-0793 PA (D.Ore. 2005) ("Case No. 05-0793"), Curtis v. Shapiro, Case No. 05-1040 PA (D.Ore. 2005) ("Case No. 05-1040"), Curtis v. Shapiro, Case No. 05-1270 PA (D.Ore. 2005) ("Case No. 05-1270"). Moreover, the complaints filed in those three cases are essentially verbatim copies of the complaint filed herein. (Compare Compl. with Compl. filed June 2, 2005 in Case No. 05-0793, Compl. filed July 5, 2005 in Case No. 05-1040, and Compl. filed August 17, 2005 in Case No. 05-1270.) The only difference between plaintiff's current complaint and the three complaints noted above consists of irrelevant commentary regarding a recent district court opinion in a case brought in the District of Oregon by a plaintiff named Mayfield. (See Compl. ¶¶ 31-37.)
In separate orders filed August 30, 2005, Judge Panner dismissed Case No. 05-0793, Case No. 05-1040, and Case No. 05-1270. (See Case No. 05-0793, Docket No. 8; Case No. 05-1040, Docket No. 9; Case No. 05-1270, Docket No. 6.)
The docket sheets and dismissal orders in Case No. 05-0793, Case No. 05-1040, and Case No. 05-1270 are attached to the instant order as Exhibit A.
LEGAL STANDARD
Where a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the "court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint that "merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims" is subject to dismissal under § 1915. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation and citation omitted).DISCUSSION
Apparently undaunted by Judge Panner's dismissal of essentially identical complaints filed in the District of Oregon, plaintiff attempts to relitigate his claims in this District. Plaintiff may not, however, evade the effect of such prior rulings by the simple expedient of refiling his action in another venue. If plaintiff is of the view that Judge Panner's rulings are erroneous, his remedy is to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, not to file a virtually identical complaint in another District.
Accordingly, the instant complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. See id.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's request to proceedin forma pauperis is DENIED, and the complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
EXHIBIT A
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ROBERT CURTIS, ) Civil No. 05-793-PA ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ) v. ) ) ELAINE BRONG, et al., ) ) Defendants. )PANNER, Judge.
This is one of, at last count, eighteen actions that Plaintiff Robert Curtis has filed, pro se and in forma pauperis, in this district since November 2003. Before subjecting the United States Marshal to the expense of serving this Complaint, and the defendants to the cost of responding to it, I have carefully reviewed the Complaint to determine if it states a cognizable claim over which this court may have jurisdiction.
In this latest Complaint, Curtis seeks to litigate various disagreements he had with BLM officials, private contractors, and bonding companies, over his company's performance on a construction contract and the decision to declare his company in default. I previously dismissed similar claims based upon numerous defects. See Curtis v. Bureau of Land Management, CV 03-1613-PA (April 21, 2004 and May 24, 2004). Those defects have not been cured here.
Conclusion
Plaintiff Curtis's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (docket # 1) is granted. This action may go forward without the payment of fees or costs. However, this action is dismissed for the reasons stated above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 30 day of August, 2005.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ROBERT CURTIS, ) Civil No. 05-1040-PA ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ) v. ) ) STEVE SHAPIRO, et al., ) ) Defendants. )PANNER, Judge.
This is one of, at last count, eighteen actions that Plaintiff Robert Curtis has filed, pro se and in forma pauperis, in this district since November 2003. Before subjecting the United States Marshal to the expense of serving this Complaint, and the defendants to the cost of responding to it, I have carefully reviewed the Complaint to determine if it states a cognizable claim over which this court may have jurisdiction.
The Complaint in this case is virtually identical to the Complaint in Curtis v. Brong, CV 05-793-PA, with two minor differences. The order of the first two defendants has been inverted in the caption, a distinction of no consequence. Curtis also lists me as an additional defendant in a transparent effort to prevent me from presiding over his cases, complaining that I have dismissed fifteen prior pro se cases that he has filed.
The matter was referred to Chief Judge Haggerty, who ruled that the Complaint did not state a legally cognizable claim against me. Chief Judge Haggerty dismissed me as a defendant, and transferred this case to me for all further proceedings. Curtis v. Shapiro, CV 05-1040-PA (Order dated July 11, 2005). Curtis then sought reconsideration of those rulings. On August 25, 2005, Judge Hogan affirmed Judge Haggerty's order.
Accordingly, the matter is now properly before me. There is no substantive difference between the Complaint in this case, and the Complaint in Curtis v. Brong, CV 05-793-PA. As such, this action is dismissed as duplicative. Plaintiff may not litigate identical actions in the same court against the same parties for the same relief.
Conclusion
Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (# 1) is granted. This action may go forward without the payment of fees or costs. However, this action is dismissed for the reasons stated above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 30 day of August, 2005.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ROBERT CURTIS, ) Civil No. 05-1270-PA ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ) v. ) ) STEVE SHAPIRO, et al., ) ) Defendants. )PANNER, Judge.
This is one of, at last count, eighteen actions that Plaintiff Robert Curtis has filed, pro se and in forma pauperis, in this district since November 2003. Before subjecting the United States Marshal to the expense of serving this Complaint, and the defendants to the cost of responding to it, I have carefully reviewed the Complaint to determine if it states a cognizable claim over which this court may have jurisdiction.
The Complaint in this case is virtually identical to the Complaint in Curtis v. Brong, CV 05-793-PA, with two minor differences. The order of the first two defendants has been inverted in the caption, a distinction of no consequence. Curtis also lists me as an additional defendant in a transparent effort to prevent me from presiding over his cases, complaining that I have dismissed fifteen prior pro se cases that he has filed.
The Complaint in this action is also substantively identical to the Complaint in Curtis v. Shapiro, CV 05-1040-PA, except for the addition of two cryptic references to "justifiable homicide." Since the Complaint purports to concern the breach of a construction contract, the alterations are not material.
The matter was referred to Judge Hogan, who ruled that the Complaint did not state a legally cognizable claim against me. Judge Hogan dismissed me as a defendant, and transferred this case to me for all further proceedings. Curtis v. Shapiro, CV 05-1270-PA (Order dated August 25, 2005).
Accordingly, the matter is now properly before me. There is no substantive difference between the Complaint in this case, and the Complaints in Curtis v. Brong, CV 05-793-PA, and Curtis v. Shapiro, CV 05-1040-PA. As such, this action is dismissed as duplicative. Plaintiff may not litigate identical actions in the same court against the same parties for the same relief.
Conclusion
The Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (# 1) is granted. However, this action is dismissed for the reasons stated above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 30 day of August, 2005.