Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01280/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01280-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 1

803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HERRERA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-1280 DAD P

vs.

B. WHEELER, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed with

the court on May 24, 2010. The court’s own records reveal that on May 13, 2010, plaintiff filed

another complaint containing virtually identical allegations against the same defendants. (See

Case No. Civ. S-10-1181 JFM P). Specifically, plaintiff alleges in both complaints that: 1

On April 17, 2009, an incident took place in which I was accused

of [a] CDC115, committing battery on [a] correctional ASU officer

at this institution (H.D.S.P.) (please see CDC 115 incident report

marked as exhibits “C”), in which excessive [force] was used on

me and [I] was beaten by several officers[;] officer Wheeler along

with other officers punched me on my face several times [] which

caused pain and bru[i]ses on my face.

Case 2:10-cv-01280-GEB-DAD Document 5 Filed 06/02/10 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, the court will recommend that

this complaint be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to

randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

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)(l). Within twenty-one 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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 1, 2010.

DAD:sj

herr1280.23

Case 2:10-cv-01280-GEB-DAD Document 5 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 2