Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01336/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01336-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLLIE ROBERT MACK,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1336 MCE EFB PS

vs.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION, et al., FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants. 

 /

This action, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, was referred to the undersigned by

Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by 

§ 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. 

However, the court notes that on July 6, 2007, the date plaintiff filed this action, he filed

an identical complaint, which was assigned to different judges. See 2:07-cv-1328 GEB KJM PS. 

On August 2, 2007, the court in that case granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Id., at Docket Entry no. 4. The court has

reviewed the complaints filed in both action, and has determined that they are exactly the same. 

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-01336-MCE -EFB Document 3 Filed 08/14/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, and because plaintiff’s complaint has already

been screened in the other case, the court recommends that this action be dismissed as

duplicative. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.

1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 14, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01336-MCE -EFB Document 3 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 2