Patrick Arthur Dillman, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Contra Costa County, Linda Peterson, Michael Brown, Bruceblackman, Shawn Mcmahon, Francine Carley, Susan Burton,district Attorney's Office, Barbara Stone, Barbara Yazhari,carol Walsh, Amina Nassardeen, Lily Choi, Eileen Nemetz,patricia Mcdonald, L. Katz, B. Stirling, the Publicdefenders Office, Alternate Defender Office, Gary T. Yancey,linda Solow, Dennis Noland, Family Stress Center, Born Freeprogram, Drug and Alcohol Prevention Program--east Countyboys and Girls Club, Christopher K. King, Palmer, Juanitaquesada, Eleanor Norton, Defendants-appellees, 78 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Patrick Arthur Dillman appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as duplicative, claiming that various persons conspired to deny him due process during state custody proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review for an abuse of discretion. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). We affirm.

The district court does not abuse its discretion when it dismisses as duplicative under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) a complaint that "merely repeats previously litigated claims." See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1995). An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous under § 1915(d) "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Cato, 70 F.3d at 1106.

A review of the record shows that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing some of Dillman's claims as duplicative of those he had presented in two prior § 1983 complaints. See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n. 2. Those claims that are not duplicative are frivolous under 1915(d) because they lack "an arguable basis either in law or in fact." See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Cato, 70 F.3d at 1106.

AFFIRMED.