Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00619/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00619-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES C. DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY 

SHERIFF'S DEPT.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-619 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

James C. Daniels, formerly an inmate at the Alameda County Jail, has filed a pro se civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §1915A, which requires the court to engage in a preliminary screening of any case

in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any

cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

such relief. See id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

The complaint filed in this action duplicates the complaint filed on the same day in

Daniels v. Alameda County Sheriff's Dept., No. C 07-618 SI. The complaint is frivolous

because it repeats claims made in the earlier case. 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) (duplicative or

Case 3:07-cv-00619-SI Document 8 Filed 09/04/07 Page 1 of 2
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

repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 as malicious). This action is dismissed with prejudice because it duplicates the claim

made in the earlier-filed action. The in forma pauperis application is DENIED. (Docket # 2.)

 No fee is due. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 4, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00619-SI Document 8 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 2