Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01528/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01528-1/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

CLETE REO HART,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1528 LKK DAD P

vs.

THERESA SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

the court on August 1, 2005. The court’s own records reveal that on June 23, 2005, plaintiff filed

a third amended complaint containing virtually identical allegations against many of the same

defendants. (No. Civ. S-05-0777 LKK PAN P ).1 In both complaints, plaintiff alleges that he has

been subjected to forty-six years of conspiracy, that he is being housed with a person who

molested plaintiff when he was a child, and that defendants have committed mail fraud or

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

the complaint be dismissed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action

be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Case 2:05-cv-01528-LKK -DAD Document 6 Filed 09/19/05 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

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: September 16, 2005.

DAD:4

hart1528.23

Case 2:05-cv-01528-LKK -DAD Document 6 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 2