923 F.2d 862
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Minor MOODY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Robert GOLDSMITH, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-15338.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 23, 1991.*
Decided Jan. 25, 1991.
Before ALARCON, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Minor Moody, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action as frivolous. In his complaint, Moody alleges that prison officials are "illegal[ly] study[ing] the function of his body to steal his soul." We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and review de novo. Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm.
A district court may dismiss an in forma pauperis action sua sponte if the action is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d). An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). A court may dismiss an action if it arises from the same series of events and alleges the same facts as another action filed by the same party. See Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir.1987); accord Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.1988); Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 896 (1975). The district court may review its own records to determine whether, given previous court documents, the plaintiff's claims are redundant. Stiltner v. Rhay, 322 F.2d 314, 316 (9th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 920 (1964).
By order dated February 23, 1990, Judge Carroll dismissed Moody's action because he had another action pending before him which Moody had earlier filed alleging the same wrong. Both actions allege that the prison officials are illegally studying Moody's bodily functions in order to steal his soul, and name some of the same defendants. The second action also names additional defendants not named in the first action.
Even though the second action names additional defendants, Judge Carroll did not err in dismissing Moody's second action as duplicative of his earlier action. On February 20, 1990, Judge Carroll issued an order in the earlier action directing Moody to state specific facts in support of his claim and to name as defendants all individuals who participated in the alleged wrongs. Thus, Moody's second action duplicates his first action, and the district court did not err in dismissing his action without granting leave to amend. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.1987).
AFFIRMED.