(PC) Cortinas v. Soltanian

Opinion

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, No. 2:20-cv-1071 CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JALLA SOLTANIAN, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint was docketed with the court on May 27, 2020. The court’s own records reveal that on the same day plaintiff filed a complaint containing identical allegations. See Cortinas v. Soltanian, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv- 1067 EFB (E.D. Cal.).1 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend that the complaint be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied as moot. 2. The Clerk of the Court randomly assign this matter to a district court judge. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 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

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