Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02368/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02368-0/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 MITCHELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2368 MCE DAD P

vs.

D.G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. The above-captioned case was

opened on October 26, 2006, when the court received three copies of plaintiff’s 55-page

complaint. The court’s own records reveal that on October 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a 55-page

complaint containing identical allegations against the same defendants. (See Mitchell v. Adams,

et al., case No. Civ. S-06-2321 GEB GGH P ). The pleadings in the two cases differ only in the 1

signature and mailing dates entered on pages 54 and 55. Due to the duplicative nature of the

present action, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.

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

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

Case 2:06-cv-02368-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 11/02/06 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

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 days after being

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

court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 1, 2006.

DAD:13:bb

mitc2368.23

Case 2:06-cv-02368-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 2