Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01215/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01215-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY L. KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

OLGA BEREGOVSKAYA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01215-AWI-GBC PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION AS

DUPLICATIVE

TWENTY DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff AnthonyL. King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants removed this action, which was filed in Kings

County Superior Court, on July 10, 2009. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff’s request for remand was denied March

22, 2010. (Doc. 8.) On December 6, 2010, Defendants filed a notice of related case, 1:09-cv-00016-

DLB. (Doc. 12.)

Upon review of the cases, the Court has concluded that the complaint removed byDefendants

to this court on July 10, 2009, is substantively identical to the action that is proceeding in the case,

King v. M. Biggs, et al., 1:09-cv-00-16-DLB. In light of the duplicative nature of the instant action

to the action filed on January 5, 2009, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS the instant action be 

DISMISSED as duplicative.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20)

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

1

Case 1:09-cv-01215-AWI-GBC Document 13 Filed 01/05/11 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

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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 5, 2011 

cm411 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2

Case 1:09-cv-01215-AWI-GBC Document 13 Filed 01/05/11 Page 2 of 2