Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01845/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01845-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Josh Thomas is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 10, 2015. On January 5, 2016, the Court granted 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, despite having suffered three or more strikes 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), based on a showing he is under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury. (Doc. No. 4.) The Court has yet to screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff has previously filed an action in this 

Court in case number 1:15-cv-01059-LJO-DLB (PC), Thomas v. Ogbehi, et.al.1That case was 

 

1

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits the Court to take judicial notice at any time. A judicially noticed fact must be one 

not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either: (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; 

or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources who accuracy reasonably cannot be questioned. 

Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Courts may take judicial notice of facts related to the case before it. Amphibious Partners, LLC v. 

Redman, 534 F.3d 1357, 1361-1362 (10th Cir. 2008) (district court was entitled to take judicial notice of its memorandum 

JOSH THOMAS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

C. OGBUEHI, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01845-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS 

DUPLICATIVE OF CASE NUMBER 1:15-CV01059-LJO-DLB (PC)

Case 1:15-cv-01845-LJO-SAB Document 5 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 2
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

dismissed, without prejudice, to re-filing with the filing fee on July 14, 2015. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff 

filed a motion for reconsideration on August 13, 2015, which was denied on August 31, 2015. (Doc. 

Nos. 6 & 7.) Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal on September 15, 2015. (Doc. 8.) On February 22, 

2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the action 

finding “the district court erred in denying appellant leave to amend his complaint without making a 

finding that amendment would be futile.” (Doc. 18, Order at 2.) On March 29, 2016, the case was 

reopened, and Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 20.) In response to the 

Court’s order, Plaintiff filed a notice on April 18, 2016, indicating that he filed his new case as 

previously instructed in case number 1:15-cv-01845-LJO-SAB (PC), Thomas v. Ogbechi, et al.

Based on a review of record, the instant action is duplicative of case number 1:15-cv-01059-LJO-DLB 

(PC), which was reopened on March 29, 2016, and Plaintiff’s claims shall proceed in that action. 

Accordingly, the instant action is DISMISSED as duplicative. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

of order and judgment from previous case involving same parties). This Court may judicially notice the records and filing 

of other court proceedings. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Bennett v. Medtronic, 

Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 802 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002).

Case 1:15-cv-01845-LJO-SAB Document 5 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 2