UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ ROBERT W. WINKEL, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. GEOFFERY HAMMOND, MD, Medical Director, Larned State Hospital, in his individual capacity; DILIP PATEL, MD, Larned State Hospital, in his individual capacity; JOHN DOE, MD, Larned State Hospital, in his individual capacity, a/k/a (FNU) Oleachea; JOHN DOES, at least six unknown John Does, security and other staff, Larned State Hospital, in their individual capacities, Defendants – Appellees. No. 14-3191 (D.C. No. 5:14- CV-03032-SAC) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before GORSUCH , McKAY , and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ After examining the briefs and appella te record, this panel determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted wit hout oral argument.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judica ta, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consiste nt with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 4, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court-2 Appellant Robert Winkel, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , filed a 28 U.S.C. § 1983 action with the United States District Court for the District of Kansas agains t numerous medical personnel and staff at Larned State Hospital. He alleges that de fendants all played a role in involuntarily administering medication to him to make him competen t to stand trial, violating various constitutional rights. The district court examined Appella nt’s claims and f ound them to be duplicative of claims he ra ised in another action in the same court, Case No. 5:13- CV-03103-SAC, Winkel v. Hammond, et al. The court dismissed the present action as frivolous under 28 U. S.C. § 1915(e), and this appeal followed. Appellant agrees this acti on is essentially identical to his first § 1983 case, which he voluntarily dismis sed without prejudice in Sept ember 2013. In February 2014, he filed a motion to re open that case. While the motion was being considered by the district court, he file d this second action. Appellant was apparently afraid the district court would deny the motion to reopen the action which he voluntarily dismissed in September 2013, and his time to refile the dismissed action would elapse in the meantime. We review a district court’s dismissal unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for an abuse of discretion

. See Schlicher v. Thomas, 111 F.3d 777, 779 ( 10th Cir. 1997). After examining the briefs and the reco rd in this case, we agree it essentially duplicates claims Appellant made in the earlier case filed in J une 2013, which is currently pending review on the merits after the district court grante d Appellant’s motion to reopen. “Repetitious-3 litigation of virtually identical causes of action may be dismissed under § 1915 as frivolous or malicious.” McWilliams v. State of Colo. , 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation mark s and brackets omitted). We accordingly find no abuse of discreti on in the district court’s decision to dismiss Appellant’s duplicative action, re gardless of his reason for filing it, and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of this case. The district court granted Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and we remind him of his obligation to continue making partial pa yments until the entire filing fee has been paid in full. Appellant’s “Motion to Compel” is DENIED

. Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge