December 17, 2013
CHARLES L. BOBO, Plaintiff,
TULARE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, Magistrate Judge.
The Court has reviewed Charles Bobo's pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), Dkt. 1, and recommends DENYING the IFP application and DISMISSING the complaint with prejudice for the reasons below.
(1) Mr. Bobo filed a complaint against the Tulare County District Attorney and Kings County Dependency Unit regarding the dependency of his daughter and the support he was ordered to pay. Dkt. 1. Mr. Bobo has filed similar complaints in Bobo v. Tulare County District Attorney, C12-1805-RSL; Bobo v. Tulare County, C13-1449-RSM; Bobo v. Tulare County, C11-1557-JCC; and Bobo v. Tulare County, C13-753-RSM. Given this pattern, the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez ordered that in deciding whether to grant Mr. Bobo IFP status, the Court must determine whether good cause exists to permit the action to go forward, and that "Mr. Bobo cannot file the same claims against the same defendant if those claims were dismissed with prejudice." See Bobo v. County of Fresno Dependency Court, C13-1044-RSM, at Dkt. 7.
(2) The present complaint is essentially the same complaint Mr. Bobo filed in C13-753-RSM and C12-1805-RSL both of which were dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court recommends DENYING Mr. Bobo's IFP application and DISMISSING the present complaint with prejudice.
Mr. Bobo is advised that this Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order. Thus he should not file a notice of appeal seeking review in Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit until District Judge Richard A. Jones enters a judgment in this case. Mr. Bobo is also advised he may file objections to this Recommendation for Judge Jones's review. Objections are limited to five pages. If Mr. Bobo wishes to file objections, he must file them no later than December 31, 2013. The Clerk should note the matter for January 3, 2014, as ready for the District Judge's consideration. The failure to timely object may affect the right to appeal.