|JAMES A. CHILDS,
JOE ORTIZ, BARRY PARDUS; DENNIS BURBANK; RANDY FOSHEE; WILLIAM RICHTER; T. KEELER; LT. HOLCOMB; DONNA MURPHY, et al.; STEVE OWENS; DONALD McCALL; JIM BROWN; SGT. SIMMONS; SGT. MEYER; PHIL MARMALEJO; JULIE RUSSELL; JASON ELSE; ANTHONY A. DECESARO; KAREN COOPER; MICHAEL ARELLANO; LARRY REID,
(D.C. No. 06-CV-760-ZLW)
Mr. Childs filed duplicative complaints that were received by the district court four days apart. The two complaints were treated as separately filed actions. The district court dismissed this second complaint as frivolous in light of its contemporaneously filed twin. "We review the district court's [28 U.S.C.] § 1915(e) dismissal for an abuse of discretion." McWilliams v. Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574-75 (10th Cir. 1997). As noted by the district court, repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action may be dismissed as frivolous under § 1915(e). Id. at 574. As this complaint in fact repeats the claims made in Childs v. Ortiz, No. 06-cv-00741-BNB, slip op. (D. Colo. Aug. 4, 2006), the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing this action.
Mr. Childs seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because he has failed to demonstrate the existence of "a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and the facts in support of the issues raised on appeal," McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 115 F .3d 809, 812-13 (10th Cir. 1997), we deny his request to proceed ifp, and order immediate payment of the unpaid balance of the filing fee.
Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Child's motion to proceed ifp and we DISMISS the appeal.(2)
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour
*.After examining appellant's brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
1.Because he is proceeding pro se, we review Mr. Childs' filings liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
2. We deny Mr. Child's "Motion to Confer Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Judgment on the Pleadings."