(PC) Azevedo v. Walton

E.D. California

(PC) Azevedo v. Walton

DecidedNovember 15, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-03102

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Azevedo v. Walton ((PC) Azevedo v. Walton) 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

(PC) Azevedo v. Walton, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEX LEONARD AZEVEDO, No. 2:24-cv-3102 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ANNE WALTON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed with the 18 court on November 8, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Walton altered transcripts of 19 plaintiff’s confidential Marsden hearing on March 1, 2021. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) The Court’s own 20 records reveal that on October 31, 2024, plaintiff filed a complaint in a separate action alleging 21 that defendant Anne Walton altered transcripts of plaintiff’s confidential Marsden hearing on 22 March 1, 2021. Azevedo v. Nelson, No. 2:24-cv-2995 AC (E.D. Cal.) (ECF No. 1 at 7).1 Due to 23 the duplicative nature of the present action, the Court recommends that the complaint be 24 dismissed. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign 26 a district judge to this case; and 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). ] IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. 2 || P.41(b). 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this 4 | case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served 5 || with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 6 || The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 7 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 8 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 9 || Cir. 1991). 10 11 || Dated: November 14, 2024 4 aA 1 Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 || Aazev3102.23 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 ALEX LEONARD AZEVEDO, No. 2:24-cv-3102 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ANNE WALTON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed with the 18 court on November 8, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Walton altered transcripts of 19 plaintiff’s confidential Marsden hearing on March 1, 2021. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) The Court’s own 20 records reveal that on October 31, 2024, plaintiff filed a complaint in a separate action alleging 21 that defendant Anne Walton altered transcripts of plaintiff’s confidential Marsden hearing on 22 March 1, 2021. Azevedo v. Nelson, No. 2:24-cv-2995 AC (E.D. Cal.) (ECF No. 1 at 7).1 Due to 23 the duplicative nature of the present action, the Court recommends that the complaint be 24 dismissed. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign 26 a district judge to this case; and 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). ] IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. 2 || P.41(b). 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this 4 | case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served 5 || with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 6 || The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 7 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 8 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 9 || Cir. 1991). 10 11 || Dated: November 14, 2024 4 aA 1 Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 || Aazev3102.23 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Azevedo v. Walton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-azevedo-v-walton-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack