Harris v. Atchley

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL JAY HARRIS, Case No. 20-cv-07899-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. Docket No. 1 10 M. ATCHLEY, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 14 Michael Jay Harris filed this pro se prisoner’s civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 15 1983. In his complaint, he alleges that prison officials failed to provide him paper he needed to 16 prepare a legal document. His complaint in this action repeats the claim made in Harris v. 17 Atchley, Case No. 20-cv-3883 EMC. The earlier action is still pending. 18 The complaint in this action is frivolous because it is duplicative of the complaint filed in 19 the earlier action. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey v. 20 Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually 21 identical causes of action is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious); see also 22 Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Plaintiffs 23 generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the 24 same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’”) 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice because it is frivolous. The Clerk 2 shall close the file. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: February 1, 2021 7 8 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27