Rossmann v. Miller

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 BRUD ROSSMANN, Case No. 25-cv-07085-CRB (PR) 5 Plaintiff, 6 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 7 TAYLOR MILLER, et al., 8 Defendant(s). 9 While Plaintiff Brud Rossman was incarcerated at the Maryland Reception, Diagnostic and 10 || Classification Center, he filed the instant pro se action alleging various wrongdoing by Maryland 11 state’s attorneys Taylor Miller, Justin Dickman and Ivan Bates in connection with their criminal 12 prosecution of plaintiff in Maryland state court. Plaintiff raised the same general allegations of 13. || wrongdoing in at least two prior prisoner complaints which were dismissed with prejudice. See S 14 || Rossmann v. Miller, No. 25-cv-02592-DLB (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2025) (order of dismissal); 3 15 || Rossmann v. Miller, No. 25-cv-02822-DLB (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2025) (order of dismissal). 16 A prisoner complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be 5 17 || considered abusive and dismissed under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Cf. Cato v. United 5 18 || States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (Sth 19 || Cir. 1988)) (duplicative in forma pauperis complaint may be considered abusive and dismissed 20 || under 28 U.S.C. § 1915). Because plaintiff raised and litigated the same general allegations and 2] claims of prosecutorial wrongdoing raised herein in two prior prisoner complaints that were 22 || dismissed with prejudice, the instant complaint is deemed duplicative and abusive under § 1915A. 23 This action is DISMISSED as duplicative under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 24 The clerk is instructed to close the file. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: October 8, 2025 27 oA CHARLES R. BREYER 28 United States District Judge