Michael Hill v. El Dorado County, et al.

E.D. California

Michael Hill v. El Dorado County, et al.

DecidedSeptember 9, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01779

StatusUnknown

This text of Michael Hill v. El Dorado County, et al. (Michael Hill v. El Dorado County, 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

Michael Hill v. El Dorado County, 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 MICHAEL HILL, No. 2:25-cv-1779 DC CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 EL DORADO COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed with the 18 court on June 25, 2025. The court’s own records reveal that on March 5, 2025, plaintiff filed a 19 complaint containing virtually identical allegations against the same eight defendants. See Hill v. 20 El Dorado County, No. 2:25-cv-0751 SCR P (E.D. Cal.)1 Due to the duplicative nature of the 21 present action, the Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 23 prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this 25 case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served 26 1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 27 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff appended different exhibits, but exhibits are not required. While exhibits are permissible, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 10(c), they are not necessary in the federal system of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 1 | with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 2 || The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 3 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 4 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 5 || Cir. 1991). 6 7 || Dated: September 9, 2025 4 aA Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM ? UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] /V/hill1 779.23 12 13 14 15 16 17 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 MICHAEL HILL, No. 2:25-cv-1779 DC CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 EL DORADO COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed with the 18 court on June 25, 2025. The court’s own records reveal that on March 5, 2025, plaintiff filed a 19 complaint containing virtually identical allegations against the same eight defendants. See Hill v. 20 El Dorado County, No. 2:25-cv-0751 SCR P (E.D. Cal.)1 Due to the duplicative nature of the 21 present action, the Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 23 prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this 25 case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served 26 1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 27 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff appended different exhibits, but exhibits are not required. While exhibits are permissible, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 10(c), they are not necessary in the federal system of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 1 | with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 2 || The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 3 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 4 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 5 || Cir. 1991). 6 7 || Dated: September 9, 2025 4 aA Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM ? UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] /V/hill1 779.23 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Michael Hill v. El Dorado County, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-hill-v-el-dorado-county-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack