Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00274/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00274-1/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

RONALD VICTOR SEVILLA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

TERHUNE, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 06-0274 AWI DLB P 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION AS

DUPLICATIVE

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

filed in the Northern District on February 16, 2006 and transferred to this court on March 10, 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 February 16, 2006, plaintiff filed an identical complaint in this court, case number CV F

06 0172 REC WMW P. Because the complaints are identical, the court will recommend dismissal of

the present action as the later filed complaint as duplicative and plaintiff will not be assessed a filing

fee for this action. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed

as duplicative.

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

Case 1:06-cv-00274-AWI-DLB Document 13 Filed 04/10/06 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

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 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: April 6, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00274-AWI-DLB Document 13 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 2