Unpublished Disposition, 914 F.2d 262 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Mike Hernandez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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. § 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 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); see also Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). 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).

Judge Karlton dismissed Hernandez's action because he had another action pending before him which Hernandez had earlier filed alleging the same wrongs by the same defendants. Hernandez concedes that the two causes of action arose from the same set of facts and name the same defendants. He argues that the district court erred in dismissing his second action, however, because the second action alleges first, fifth, and fourteenth amendment violations while his first action alleges only an eighth amendment violation. Nevertheless, given the district court's mandate to construe pro se pleadings liberally, we presume that the district court will consider Hernandez's various legal theories in evaluating his first action. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, because Hernandez's second action duplicates the first action still pending in district court, the district court did not err in dismissing his action without granting leave to amend. See id.

AFFIRMED.