Pittman v. Rees
This text of Pittman v. Rees (Pittman v. Rees) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RANDY DEWAYNE PITTMAN, Case No. 22-cv-07143-JSW
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9
10 ROBERT DAVID REES, et al., Defendants. 11
12 Plaintiff, an inmate in the Santa Rita County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights action 13 against the United States Attorney General, several Assistant United States Attorneys, and 14 officials in the United States Marshal’s Service and Bureau of Prisons seeking placement in the 15 federal witness protection program. This complaint is duplicative of the allegations and request 16 for relief in a motion now pending in another civil rights action in which Plaintiff seeks placement 17 in a federal witness protection program. See Pittman v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al., 18 No. C 22-3806 VKD (PR) (ECF No. 20). 19 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 22 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1). As the 24 complaint repeats claims that are pending in another case, even though brought against different 25 defendants, it be considered frivolous and dismissed. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 26 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (a complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims 27 may be considered abusive and dismissed); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1 Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1975); Ballentine v. Crawford, 563 F. Supp. 627, 629 (N.D. 2 |} Ind. 1983). 3 Accordingly, the instant action is DISMISSED under Section 1915A(a). The Clerk shall 4 || enter judgment and close the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: November 18, 2022 7 / | Ch Nite _SEFFRBY |S. WHITE 9 / /Unit/d States District Judge 10 11 12
© 15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Pittman v. Rees, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittman-v-rees-cand-2022.