Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03748/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03748-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CARL BOBB,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT; RICHARD PIERCE, Fresno

County sheriff; HAROLD McKINNY, former

Fresno County sheriff; STEVE MAGARIAN,

former Fresno County sheriff,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-03748 WHA

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff has filed three substantially similar complaints with this Court. The first, in

Bobb v. Lewis, was dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to

state a claim. Case No. C 03-4344 WHA (July 6, 2004 N.D. Cal.). The second, Bobb v. Fresno

County Sheriff’s Dep’t, was dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata. Case No. C 04-3550

(Jan. 6, 2005 N.D. Cal.). This third complaint is functionally identical to those in the previous

cases and therefore is DISMISSED for the same reasons.

Understood liberally, plaintiff, who is not represented by counsel, states that the instant

case arises under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He alleges that his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and

Eighth through Fourteenth amendments were violated. The complaint accuses defendants of

using listening devices from about July 20, 1977, through September 16, 2005, to eavesdrop on

him and to cause him epileptic seizures and heart failure (see Compl.). He alleged in his last

case, No. C 04-3550, that the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department had planted listening devices
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

on him and that the equipment caused him epileptic seizures and heart failure. Complaint, No.

C 04-3550 (Aug. 25, 2004 N.D. Cal.).

The new complaint contains no new allegations. It fails to state a claim and is barred by

res judicata. It is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff’s request to

proceed in forma pauperis is REJECTED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs is ORDERED not to file another

complaint that is functionally identical to the three this Court already has rejected. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE