Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01318/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01318-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES FRANCIS GOODS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASCO STATE PRISON,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01318-JLT (PC)

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 

COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE; AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CASE AS DUPLICATIVE

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Previously, the Court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and 

determined that the allegations contained therein are duplicative of allegations included in a 

previously-filed action, Goods v. Wasco State Prison, Case No. 1:19-cv-0661-AWI-SAB. (Doc. 

8.) Plaintiff was therefore ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as 

duplicative of the earlier-filed case. The period for responding to the Court’s Order to Show Cause 

has now passed, and plaintiff has not responded. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that:

1. The Order to Show Cause is vacated; 

2. The Clerk of Court shall assign a District Judge to this case; and

The Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed as a duplicate of Goods v. Wasco 

State Prison, Case No. 1:19-cv-0661-AWI-SAB. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

Case 1:19-cv-01318-DAD-JLT Document 10 Filed 02/04/20 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

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

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01318-DAD-JLT Document 10 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 2