Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05839/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05839-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

STACEY E. RILEY, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

SGT. ALLISON HART, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5839 TEH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE

CLERK

(Docket No. 2) 

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at San

Quentin State Prison, in Crescent City, California, has filed a civil rights complaint

complaining about allegedly unconstitutional actions of police officers from Berkeley,

California in pursuing rape charges against Plaintiff. Plaintiff has also filed an

application to proceed in forma pauperis, which is granted in a separate order filed

simultaneously. Plaintiff’s complaint asserts the same cause of action that he raised in a

prior case before this Court: Case No. C 07-4091 TEH (PR) which is currently pending

in this Court. Therefore, the instant case is DISMISSED as duplicative of Plaintiff’s

earlier filed complaint. 

BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the named Defendant police officers

conspired to “frame Petitioner for a kidnap rape charge” and falsified evidence and

testimony against Plaintiff at his state criminal trials, the charges of which he was

ultimately acquitted. The Court has reviewed the complaint in Plaintiff’s earlier case,

Case No. C 07-4091 TEH (PR) against the same four Defendants, alleging the same

causes of action. 

Case 3:07-cv-05839-TEH Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 2
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

 ANALYSIS

I Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be

liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1990).

II Legal Claims

A complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be

dismissed under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 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). This

action is duplicative of an earlier complaint filed in this Court that is currently pending. 

As such, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED as duplicative and for failure to state a

claim for relief. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Clerk of Court shall

enter judgment and close the file.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 11/29/07 

 THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05839-TEH Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 2