Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02351/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02351-0/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

ROGELIO MAY RUIZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. HUBBARD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 19-cv-2351 KJM KJN P

ORDER and FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

court on November 20, 2019. The court’s own records reveal that on November 20, 2019, 

plaintiff filed a complaint containing virtually identical allegations. (2:19-cv-2350 JAM AC P.)1 

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

herein be dismissed.2

 

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).

2

 The instant action and case 19-2350 allege that defendant A. Hubbard refused to file plaintiff’s 

complaint against Magistrate Judge Stormes. The allegations against defendant Hubbard in both 

actions are identical. The only difference between the instant action and case 19-2350, is that in 

the instant action, plaintiff lists Judge Stormes as a defendant in the caption of the complaint. 

However, Judge Stormes is not named as a defendant in the section of the complaint where 

plaintiff identifies the defendants. (See ECF No. 1 at 2.) In addition, the complaint includes no 

allegations against Judge Stormes. For these reasons, it does not appear that plaintiff intends to 

name Judge Stormes as a defendant in the instant action. However, if plaintiff did intend to name 

Case 2:19-cv-02351-KJM-KJN Document 9 Filed 01/03/20 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

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

a district judge to this case; and

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: January 3, 2020

Ruiz2351.23

 

Judge Stormes as a defendant, he shall file an amended complaint in case 19-cv-2350. 

Case 2:19-cv-02351-KJM-KJN Document 9 Filed 01/03/20 Page 2 of 2