(PC) Cortinas v. Soltanian

E.D. California

(PC) Cortinas v. Soltanian

DecidedJune 1, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-01071

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Cortinas v. Soltanian ((PC) Cortinas v. Soltanian) 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) Cortinas v. Soltanian, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, No. 2:20-cv-1071 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JALLA SOLTANIAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint was docketed with the 18 court on May 27, 2020. The court’s own records reveal that on the same day plaintiff filed a 19 complaint containing identical allegations. See Cortinas v. Soltanian, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv- 20 1067 EFB (E.D. Cal.).1 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will 21 recommend that the complaint be dismissed. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied as moot. 24 2. The Clerk of the Court randomly assign this matter to a district court judge. 25 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice as 26 duplicative. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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). 2 OU UV MEME LOY RON NEE MIU I eA ee

1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this 2 || case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days after being served 3 | with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 4 | The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 6 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 7 | Cir. 1991). 8 | Dated: June 1, 2020 bh rdf ht / {a— ? CAROLYN K.DELANEY. 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 12/ cort1071.23.docx 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 LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, No. 2:20-cv-1071 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JALLA SOLTANIAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint was docketed with the 18 court on May 27, 2020. The court’s own records reveal that on the same day plaintiff filed a 19 complaint containing identical allegations. See Cortinas v. Soltanian, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv- 20 1067 EFB (E.D. Cal.).1 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will 21 recommend that the complaint be dismissed. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied as moot. 24 2. The Clerk of the Court randomly assign this matter to a district court judge. 25 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice as 26 duplicative. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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). 2 OU UV MEME LOY RON NEE MIU I eA ee

1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this 2 || case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days after being served 3 | with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 4 | The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 6 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 7 | Cir. 1991). 8 | Dated: June 1, 2020 bh rdf ht / {a— ? CAROLYN K.DELANEY. 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 12/ cort1071.23.docx 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Cortinas v. Soltanian, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-cortinas-v-soltanian-caed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack