Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01928/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01928-0/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

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).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD C. BACHMAN, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1928 LKK KJM P

vs.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed with the court on August 23, 2006. The court’s

own records reveal that on May 22, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint containing virtually

identical allegations against many of the same defendants. (No. Civ. S-05-2503 DFL KJM P ).1

 

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

be dismissed.

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. In light of the

recommendation that this action be dismissed as duplicative, this motion is denied. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01928-LKK -KJM Document 7 Filed 10/31/06 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

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 4, 2006 request for the

appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as duplicative. 

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 twenty 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: October 30, 2006

2

bach1928.23

Case 2:06-cv-01928-LKK -KJM Document 7 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 2