(PC) Morgan v. Davies

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 MIKE MORGAN, No. 2:24-CV-0480-DAD-CKD-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 D. DAVIES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 I. Screening Requirement 21 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint that is now before the court for screening. 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Examination of the first amended complaint and court records reveal that it 23 contains virtually identical allegations as those raised in Morgan v. Espinoza, et al., No. 2:23-cv- 24 1955-DAD-DMC-P (E.D. Cal.).1 25 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the undersigned recommends that it be 26

27 1 The 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). 28 1 dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health 2 Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two 3 separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against 4 the same defendant); overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008); 5 Higgins v. Medina, 2007 WL 4258362, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2007) (dismissing complaint as 6 duplicative of complaint filed in separate action). 7 II. Plain Language Summary for Party Proceeding Without a Lawyer 8 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 9 intended as legal advice. 10 The court has reviewed the allegations in your first amended complaint and determined 11 that they are the exact same claims filed in an earlier case that is currently pending in this same 12 court. The law does not allow the same claims to be raised in multiple lawsuits. You may 13 continue to pursue these claims in Morgan v. Espinoza, et al., No. 2:23-cv-1955-DAD-DMC-P 14 (E.D. Cal.). 15 If you do not agree with this recommendation, you can explain why it is not correct. 16 Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 17 The district judge assigned to your case will review the file and make the final decision. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 19 prejudice based on plaintiff's ability to pursue his claims in Morgan v. Espinoza, et al., No. 2:23- 20 cv-1955-DAD-DMC-P (E.D. Cal.). 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after 23 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 24 the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 25 Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 26 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 | Dated: October 18, 2024 Cardh kt Lz /y a ? CAROLYNK.DELANEY 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 | 12/morg0480.duplicative 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28