Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00927/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00927-0/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 

EDWARD BRIDGEMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. FOX, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0927 KJN P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

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

court on May 2, 2016. The court’s own records reveal that on December 14, 2015, plaintiff filed 

a complaint containing virtually identical allegations. (Case No. 2:15-cv-2579 JAM AC.)1

 Due 

to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court recommends that the complaint be 

dismissed. Plaintiff must file all of his Eighth Amendment claims arising from defendants’ 

alleged failure to properly treat his cancer in one action, Case No. 2:15-cv-2579 JAM AC. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign 

a district judge to this case; and 

//// 

//// 

 

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-00927-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 05/10/16 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

 IT IS 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: May 10, 2016 

 

 

/cw/brid0927.23 

Case 2:16-cv-00927-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 2