Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02087/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02087-2/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Mark Phelps (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was removed from the Kern County Superior Court 

on December 19, 2013. On August 13, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 

Recommendations that Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action be denied. The Findings and 

Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed 

within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 10.) On September 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed his objections to the 

Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 12.) On September 23, 2014, following consideration of 

Plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full and denied 

Plaintiff’s motion to remand. (ECF No. 13.) On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a supplement to 

his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff’s 

MARK RAYMOND PHELPS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-02087-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISREGARDING SUPPLEMENT TO 

OBJECTIONS TO FINDING AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 15)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS 

DUPLICATIVE

Case 1:13-cv-02087-LJO-BAM Document 16 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 2
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

supplement is untimely and unrelated to the merits of the motion for remand. Accordingly, the 

supplement shall be disregarded. 

Further, a review of court records reveals that this action is duplicative of case number 1:13-

cv-00309-LJO-MJS, which was filed on March 4, 2013. Both actions allege that defendants violated 

the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. As the complaints are 

alleging the same facts against the same defendants, this case, as the later-filed one, shall be dismissed 

as duplicative.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s supplement to objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations is DISREGARDED; and

2. This action is DIMSISSED as duplicative. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02087-LJO-BAM Document 16 Filed 10/14/14 Page 2 of 2