Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01858/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01858-0/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 J. ELLIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1858 MCE DAD P

vs.

DAVID TRISTAN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

The plaintiff in this action is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a complaint

filed in this court on August 18, 2006. Although plaintiff alleges that he has filed only one other

lawsuit while a prisoner, the court’s records reveal that plaintiff has filed two other lawsuits in

this court, that both of the lawsuits are pending at this time, and that one of the lawsuits alleges

the same claim alleged in his latest lawsuit.

1

On January 9, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint dated October 18, 2005, against

D.L. Runnels, warden of High Desert State Prison, challenging the institution’s ban of materials

displaying frontal nudity under the authority of a CDC administrative bulletin issued by David

Tristan on July 10, 2002. (Ellis v. Runnels, case No. CIV S-06-0040 FCD PAN P.) By way of

Case 2:06-cv-01858-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 3
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

relief, plaintiff requested that the court abolish or ban the CDC’s policy of banning magazines

containing frontal nudity. On March 29, 2006, the complaint in case No. CIV S-06-0040 was

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the

dismissal of his complaint was denied on May 18, 2006, and plaintiff was granted an additional

thirty days to file an amended complaint. In his amended complaint filed in case No. CIV S-06-

0040 on June 12, 2006, plaintiff again contests the ban on publications containing frontal nudity

under the authority of the 2002 administrative bulletin and requests that the ban be overturned. 

The amended pleading in that action is pending at the present time.

In the present action, plaintiff has submitted a complaint dated July 19, 2006, in

which he identifies the defendants as David Tristan, Deputy Director of Field Operations, and

D.L. Runnels, Warden of High Desert State Prison. Therein, plaintiff requests that the 2002

administrative bulletin issued by David Tristan be destroyed. Plaintiff also seeks a permanent

injunction allowing inmates to receive material containing frontal nudity.

A copy of the 2002 administrative bulletin issued by David Tristan was attached

to the initial complaint filed by plaintiff in case No. CIV S-06-0040. It is evident that David

Tristan’s name was known to plaintiff when he filed the complaint in January 2006. Moreover,

plaintiff had an extended period of time in which to file an amended complaint in case No. CIV

S-06-0040 in which he could have named David Tristan as a defendant. Plaintiff cannot proceed

with two cases against defendant Runnels on the same claim, or with two cases challenging the

same CDC policy. Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend

that this case be dismissed without prejudice to proceedings in case No. CIV S-06-0040. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the District Judge

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

Case 2:06-cv-01858-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

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: August 28, 2006.

DAD:13

elli1858.23

Case 2:06-cv-01858-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 08/29/06 Page 3 of 3