Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02671/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02671-0/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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 1

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

LONZELL GREEN, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2671 MCE DAD P

vs.

JAMES WALKER, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On November 8, 2007, plaintiff commenced this civil rights action in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of California by filing a civil rights complaint

together with an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On November 29, 2007, the

Northern District transferred the case to this court, which has proper venue. 

Upon further review of the court’s own records, the court finds that on October

22, 2007, plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint containing similar allegations in the Northern

District. On November 9, 2007, the Northern District transferred that case to this district as well. 

(See Case No. Civ. S-07-2487 LKK DAD P). In both civil rights actions, plaintiff alleges that 1

defendants, members of the Green Wall Gang, have violated his constitutional rights and

discriminated against him because of his mental disability. Due to the duplicative nature of the

Case 2:07-cv-02671-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 03/10/08 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

 Plaintiff’s complaint in Case No. Civ. S-07-2487 LKK DAD P contains vague and 2

conclusory allegations that fail to allege any specific causal link between the actions of the

defendants and the claimed constitutional violations. Accordingly, the court has dismissed

plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. The court refers plaintiff to the order filed in Case No.

Civ. S-07-2487 LKK DAD P, which instructs plaintiff regarding the legal standards applicable to

the claims it appears he is attempting to assert. 

2

present action, the court will recommend that this complaint be dismissed. To the extent that

plaintiff has named defendants in this action who are not named in Case No. Civ. S-07-2487

LKK DAD P, plaintiff will have an opportunity to amend his complaint in that case to include

additional defendants and allegations. 

2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 11, 2007 application to proceed in forma pauperis be

denied; and

2. 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 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: March 7, 2008.

DAD:9

gree2671.23

Case 2:07-cv-02671-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 03/10/08 Page 2 of 2