Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00348/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00348-0/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

1

 A 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).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARVEY EUGENE LARSON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0348 MCE KJM P

vs.

WARDEN RUNNELS, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

the court on February 5, 2008. The court’s own records reveal that on January 26, 2005, January

3, 2005, May 1, 2006, and Jun 26, 2006, plaintiff filed complaints containing virtually identical

allegations against the same defendants. (No. Civ. S- 05-364 MCE PAN, Civ. No. S-05-0007

GEB PAN, Civ. No. S-06-940 GEB GGH, Civ. No. S-0101413 ALA).1

 Due to the duplicative

nature of the present action, the court will recommend that the complaint be dismissed as

frivolous.

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

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

Case 2:08-cv-00348-MCE -KJM Document 5 Filed 02/22/08 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. 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: February 22, 2008. 

Case 2:08-cv-00348-MCE -KJM Document 5 Filed 02/22/08 Page 2 of 2