Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00276/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00276-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD VICTOR SEVILLA,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 0276 AWI WMW P

vs.

CAL TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. This action proceeds on the original

complaint filed in the Northern District on February 24, 2006, and transferred to this court on

March 13, 2006. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections

at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, brings this action against correctional

officials for allegedly inadequate medical care.

On February16, 2006, plaintiff filed an identical complaint in this court, case number CV

F 06 0172 REC WMW P. A review of the complaints reveals that they are identical. Plaintiff is

cautioned that both actions proceed, he will be assessed two separate filing fees, a total

assessment of $500. The filing fees will be deducted from plaintiff’s inmate trust account. 

Because the complaints are identical, the court will recommend dismissal of the later filed

complaint as duplicative. Plaintiff will not be assessed a filing fee for this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as

Case 1:06-cv-00276-AWI-WMW Document 3 Filed 03/31/06 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

duplicative.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. Such a 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00276-AWI-WMW Document 3 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2