Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00145/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00145-0/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

CEDRIC GREENE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0145 FCD PAN P

vs.

S. WRIGHT,

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

the court on January 23, 2006. The court’s own records reveal that on January 23, 2006, plaintiff

filed a complaint containing virtually identical allegations against the same defendants. (No.

Civ. S-06-0146 DFL GGH P). Although plaintiff filed CIV S-06-0146 DFL GGH P on an 1

application for writ of habeas corpus form, the court construed plaintiff’s filing as a civil rights

complaint and ordered the case transferred to the Central District, where plaintiff is presently

incarcerated and where the events at issue took place. Due to the duplicative nature of the

present action, the court will recommend that the instant 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 2:06-cv-00145-FCD-PAN Document 6 Filed 03/27/06 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

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 24, 2006.

/001; gree0145.23

Case 2:06-cv-00145-FCD-PAN Document 6 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2