Unpublished Disposition, 928 F.2d 1137 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Mark LaRue, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for denial of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989), and we affirm.

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).

In 1987, LaRue filed a civil rights action in the Eastern District of Washington alleging denial of access to the courts. At that time, LaRue was a Washington state prisoner who had been transferred to a federal prison in Illinois as a boarder. Judge Quackenbush issued a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff, ordering Washington state officials to either provide him with adequate legal assistance, or transfer him back to the State of Washington. In January 1990, LaRue filed a motion for writ of assistance alleging that state officials were not complying with the court's injunction. In March 1990, the district court denied LaRue's motion, with leave to reapply for relief at the conclusion of a trial scheduled to begin that month on pending Illinois state charges. Apparently, LaRue's place of confinement also was to be determined at the conclusion of the trial.

On April 4, 1990, LaRue filed a separate civil rights action in the Eastern District of Washington for denial of access to the courts. Judge Quackenbush dismissed the action because it was duplicative of the claims in LaRue's motion denied one month earlier in the first action. Despite the fact that LaRue names additional defendants not named in the first action, a review of the record indicates that the two actions are the same, and the district court did not err in dismissing the second action as duplicative. See Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370.

AFFIRMED.