Jonathan Christopher Coffer v. Oliveros, et al.

E.D. California

Jonathan Christopher Coffer v. Oliveros, et al.

DecidedSeptember 16, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01286

StatusUnknown

This text of Jonathan Christopher Coffer v. Oliveros, et al. (Jonathan Christopher Coffer v. Oliveros, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jonathan Christopher Coffer v. Oliveros, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONATHAN CHRISTOPHER COFFER, 2:25-cv-1286-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 OLIVEROS, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jonathan Coffer, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel and seeks relief under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302. See 28 U.S.C. 19 § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s complaint is before the court for screening. (ECF No. 1.) The court’s 20 records reveal that on May 6, 2025, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Fresno division of this court 21 that is virtually identical to the present complaint except that the present complaint contains one 22 additional page with a list of defendants. See Coffer v. Oliveros, et al., 1:25-cv-00531-GSA 23 (“duplicative case”).1 On May 7, 2025, the duplicative case was transferred to the Northern 24 District of California, where it was assigned case number case number 5:25-cv-04140. Due to the 25 duplicative nature of the present action with the action already transferred to the Northern District 26 of California, the undersigned will recommend the present action be dismissed. 27 1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 28 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to 2 || assign a district judge to this case. 3 In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 4 1. This action be dismissed as duplicative to Coffer v. Oliveros, et al., 1:25-cv-00531- 5 GSA; and 6 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) be denied as moot. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this 8 || case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served 9 || with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 10 || The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 11 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 12 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 13 | 1991). 14 | Dated: September 16, 2025 / aa / a Ly a

16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 8, coffl 286.23 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONATHAN CHRISTOPHER COFFER, 2:25-cv-1286-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 OLIVEROS, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jonathan Coffer, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel and seeks relief under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302. See 28 U.S.C. 19 § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s complaint is before the court for screening. (ECF No. 1.) The court’s 20 records reveal that on May 6, 2025, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Fresno division of this court 21 that is virtually identical to the present complaint except that the present complaint contains one 22 additional page with a list of defendants. See Coffer v. Oliveros, et al., 1:25-cv-00531-GSA 23 (“duplicative case”).1 On May 7, 2025, the duplicative case was transferred to the Northern 24 District of California, where it was assigned case number case number 5:25-cv-04140. Due to the 25 duplicative nature of the present action with the action already transferred to the Northern District 26 of California, the undersigned will recommend the present action be dismissed. 27 1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 28 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to 2 || assign a district judge to this case. 3 In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 4 1. This action be dismissed as duplicative to Coffer v. Oliveros, et al., 1:25-cv-00531- 5 GSA; and 6 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) be denied as moot. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this 8 || case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served 9 || with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 10 || The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 11 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 12 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 13 | 1991). 14 | Dated: September 16, 2025 / aa / a Ly a

16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 8, coffl 286.23 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jonathan Christopher Coffer v. Oliveros, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonathan-christopher-coffer-v-oliveros-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack