Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01510/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01510-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER LANGSTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1510 DAD P

ORDER &

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed with the court on July 14, 2015. The court’s own 

records reveal that on July 6, 2015, plaintiff filed a complaint containing virtually identical 

allegations in case no. 2:15-cv-1437 KJN P.

1

 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, 

the court will recommend that the complaint in this later filed action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign 

a district judge to this case; and

////

////

////

 

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).

Case 2:15-cv-01510-TLN-DAD Document 6 Filed 07/27/15 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

27

28

2

IT IS RECOMMENDED that 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 fourteen 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: July 24, 2015

DAD:10/kly

lang1510.23

Case 2:15-cv-01510-TLN-DAD Document 6 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 2