Young v. Hansen

USCA1 Opinion [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 97-1394 MAURICE D. YOUNG, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. JOHN HANSEN, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Selya, Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Maurice D. Young on brief pro se. ________________ William R. Fisher, Ivy L. Frignoca and Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel __________________ ________________ _________________________ & Libby on brief for appellees. _______ ____________________ October 24, 1997 ____________________ Per Curiam. Pro se plaintiff Maurice Young appeals a ___________ ___ __ district court judgment that dismissed as frivolous his second 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint for damages allegedly caused by his wrongful arrest and prosecution. See 28 U.S.C. ___ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). This court previously affirmed the district court's dismissal of Young's first 1983 complaint as frivolous. See Young v. Knox County Deputy, et al., slip ___ _____ ___________________________ op. no. 95-1064 (1st Cir. Oct. 17, 1995). Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties' briefs on appeal, we agree that this case essentially duplicates Young's first action. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is summarily affirmed. See, e.g., McWilliams v. Colorado, 121 ________ ___ ____ __________ ________ F.2d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997); Hudson v. Hedge, 27 F.3d 274, ______ _____ 276 (7th Cir. 1994); Cooper v. Delo, 997 F.2d 376, 377 (8th ______ ____ Cir. 1993); Local Rule 27.1. -2-