Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02153/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02153-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FAUSTINO ROBINSON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2153 FCD GGH P

vs.

OFFICER NUNN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

By Order, filed on October 31, 2006, plaintiff’s allegations were dismissed, but

plaintiff was granted leave to amend, within thirty days, to file a complaint that complied with

the requirements, inter alia, of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the

Local Rules of Practice. Plaintiff was also directed to submit, within thirty days from the date of

this order, the application to proceed in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), and 1915(a),

or the filing fee in the amount of $350.00. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to comply with

this order would result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed. The Clerk of the

Court was directed to provide plaintiff with the appropriate forms. 

On November 22, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint on the appropriate form. 

However, court records indicate that in a prior case filed by plaintiff in this court, of which this

Case 2:06-cv-02153-ALA Document 7 Filed 04/30/07 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

 Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 1

626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126 (1981).

2

court takes judicial notice, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in Case No. CIV S-06-2152 1

GEB DAD P, also on November 22, 2006. The amended complaint filed in the instant action is a

precise duplicate of the amended complaint filed in that case. (The original complaints in both

actions were both filed on September 28, 2006, but the other case has a case number which

indicates that it precedes this one).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff is directed, within fifteen (15) days

of the date this order is served, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as

duplicative. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: 4/30/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

robi2153.osc

Case 2:06-cv-02153-ALA Document 7 Filed 04/30/07 Page 2 of 2