Case Name: Jasper BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-21
Citations: 31 F. App'x 412
Docket Number: No. 01-15549; D.C. No. CV-01-00427-CW
Parties: Jasper BROWN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 31
Pages: 412–412

Head Matter:
Jasper BROWN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 01-15549. D.C. No. CV-01-00427-CW.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2002.
Decided Feb. 21, 2002.
Before B. FLETCHER, T.G. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jasper Brown appeals pro se the district court's order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing, as duplicative, his complaint alleging that the San Francisco district attorney's office conspired to deprive him of real property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal, Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir.1991), and we affirm.
Because Brown's complaint names the same party and raises the same issues as a previously-filed federal action, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.