Young v. Hansen ( 1997 )

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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-