Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leon v. Meggitt Plc

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 2, 2013

Michael A. Leon, Plaintiff,
v.
Meggitt PLC, et al., Defendant.

ORDER

CINDY K. JORGENSON, District Judge.

On June 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against Meggitt PLC alleging negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, slander, and invasion of privacy false light in the District of Columbia. (Doc. 1). Additionally, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Doc. 2) and a Motion for Permission to E-File. (Doc. 3).

On July 19, 2013, Plaintiff's case was transferred to the District of Arizona. (Doc. 5). Pursuant to the transfer order, the case was transferred because the alleged wrongdoing occurred in Arizona and Plaintiff had filed an identical complaint in the District of Arizona. (Doc. 4). After the case was transferred, Plaintiff filed another Motion for Permission to E-File, (Doc. 8) and a Motion to Issue Summons to Effect Service of Process. (Doc. 9).

Before commencing this case, Plaintiff filed a prior case, Leon v. Meggitt PLC, No. 4:13-cv-0287-TUC-JGZ, which is also pending in the District of Arizona.

I. Screening of Complaint

This Court is required to dismiss a case if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A), or if the Court determines that the action "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

II. A Duplicative Action Must Be Dismissed

An in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); see also McWilliams v. State of Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574 (11th Cir. 1997) (repetitious action may be dismissed as frivolous or malicious); Aziz v. Burrows, 976 F.2d 1158 (9th Cir. 1992) ("district courts may dismiss a duplicative complaint raising issues directly related to issues in another pending action brought by the same party"); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject to dismissal as malicious).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's pro se Complaint and this action are dismissed as duplicative of 4:13-cv-0287-TUC-JGZ. (Doc. 1).

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Doc. 2), Plaintiff's two Motions for Permission to E-File, (Docs. 3, 8), and Plaintiff's Motion to Issue Summons to Effect Service of Process, (Doc. 9) are denied as moot.

3. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close its file in this matter.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.