Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01710/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01710-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ben Curry
Respondent
Henry Ngo Wu
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY NGO WU, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C 07-1710 MMC(PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSSAL;

DENYING APPLICATION FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 4)

On March 26, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges

a 2004 decision by the California Board of Prison Hearings (“BPH”) to deny him parole. 

On April 30, 2007, plaintiff filed a letter indicating that the instant petition is an

identical copy of a petition filed by petitioner in a previous habeas action, Wu v. Curry, No.

C 07-1438 MMC (PR), which action is currently pending. A complaint that merely repeats

pending or previously litigated claims is frivolous and 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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (providing that second or

successive petition may not be filed in district court unless petitioner first obtains from

United States Court of Appeals order authorizing such petition). As the instant petition is

identical to petitioner’s earlier-filed petition, the instant action is hereby DISMISSED as

Case 3:07-cv-01710-MMC Document 10 Filed 06/11/07 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

1

In his April 30, 2007 letter, petitioner requested that the Court either dismiss one of

the two cases or, alternatively, that both cases be “consolidated.” The Court sees no purpose

in consolidating two identical cases. Dismissal of the instant action will not adversely affect

the Court’s consideration of the petition in the earlier-filed case. 

2

duplicative.1 

In light of this dismissal, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and

no fee is due. 

This order terminates Docket No. 4.

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 11, 2007

 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01710-MMC Document 10 Filed 06/11/07 Page 2 of 2