Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01171/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01171-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMBRI SEAN JOHNSON, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTION AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-1171 CKD P

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

court on May 31, 2016. The court’s records reveal that plaintiff is proceeding on virtually 

identical allegations against the same defendants in an earlier-filed action, Johnson v. Arnolds, 

2:14-cv-2589 AC.1 In that action, plaintiff initially asserted his claims in a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, which was dismissed without prejudice to refiling as a § 1983 civil rights action. 

On July 14, 2015, plaintiff reasserted his claims in a civil rights complaint in the same case; that 

action is ongoing. Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend 

that the complaint in this action be dismissed.

////

 

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).

Case 2:16-cv-01171-JAM-CKD Document 4 Filed 08/10/16 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

27

28

2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Clerk of Court shall assign 

a district judge to this action.

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 District Judge assigned to this 

case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 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: August 10, 2016

2 / john1171.23

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-01171-JAM-CKD Document 4 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 2