Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02793/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02793-2/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

ROBIN HOFFMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORNING POLICE DEPT., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2793 DAD P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his

complaint on December 1, 2014. The court’s own records reveal that prior to the filing of this 

complaint, on November 20, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint containing virtually identical 

allegations against the same defendants. (See No. 2:14-cv-2736 MCE KJN P).1 Due to the 

duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend that the complaint filed in this 

action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this action to a 

district judge.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

 

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 2:14-cv-02793-MCE-DAD Document 8 Filed 03/17/15 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

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: March 17, 2015

hm

hoff2793.23

Case 2:14-cv-02793-MCE-DAD Document 8 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 2