(PC) Morgan v. Davies

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 15, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01039
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIKE MORGAN, No. 2:24-cv-1039 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 LT. DAVIES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed with the 18 court on April 8, 2024. The court’s records reveal that plaintiff is proceeding in another action in 19 this court based on virtually identical allegations. (Case no. 2:23-cv-1955 DAD DMC P).1 Due 20 to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend that the complaint be 21 dismissed. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign 23 a district judge to this case; and 24 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. 25 P. 41(b). 26 //// 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). ] 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 fourteen 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 9 || Dated: April 15, 2024 4 aA 10 Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM M UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 || Morg1039.dup 14 2 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28