Court Opinion

ID: 2964922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:02.327077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:43.561663
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1394

                                  MAURICE D. YOUNG,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                 JOHN HANSEN, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Maurice D. Young on brief pro se.
            ________________
            William R.  Fisher, Ivy L.  Frignoca and Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel
            __________________  ________________     _________________________
        & Libby on brief for appellees.
        _______

                                 ____________________

                                   October 24, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.  Pro  se plaintiff Maurice  Young appeals a
                 ___________   ___  __

            district  court  judgment  that  dismissed as  frivolous  his

            second  42  U.S.C.    1983  complaint  for  damages allegedly

            caused by his wrongful arrest and prosecution.  See 28 U.S.C.
                                                            ___

               1915(e)(2)(B)(i).  This  court  previously  affirmed   the

            district  court's dismissal of Young's first   1983 complaint

            as frivolous. See  Young v. Knox County Deputy,  et al., slip
                          ___  _____    ___________________________

            op. no. 95-1064 (1st Cir.  Oct. 17, 1995).  Having thoroughly

            reviewed the record  and the  parties' briefs  on appeal,  we

            agree that  this  case essentially  duplicates Young's  first

            action.  Accordingly,  the judgment of the  district court is

            summarily affirmed.   See, e.g., McWilliams v.  Colorado, 121
                      ________    ___  ____  __________     ________

            F.2d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997); Hudson v. Hedge, 27 F.3d 274,
                                            ______    _____

            276 (7th Cir. 1994); Cooper  v. Delo, 997 F.2d 376, 377  (8th
                                 ______     ____

            Cir. 1993); Local Rule 27.1.

                                         -2-