Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00270/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00270-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 0270 OWW WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. This action was filed in

Sacramento on February 27, 2006, and transferred to this court on March 3, 2006. On February

22, 2006, plaintiff filed in this court civil action no. CV F 06 00198 OWW LJO P, Shaun

Darnell Garland v. A. K. Scribner, et al.,. A review of the action filed on February 22, 2006,

reveals that the complaint is duplicative of the complaint in this action. 

Plaintiff is advised that if he desires to proceed with two separate actions, he will

be obligated to pay the $250 filing fee for each case, incurring a total liability of $500. Orders

will be entered directing the California Department of Corrections to collect and forward to the

court the filing fee from plaintiff’s inmate trust account. 

The court will recommend that this action (no. CV F 06 270 OWW WMW P) be 

dismissed as duplicative. Should this action be dismissed as duplicative, plaintff will not incur

Case 1:06-cv-00270-OWW-WMW Document 9 Filed 03/17/06 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

the $250 filing fee for this case. If plaintiff fails to file objections, this action will be dismissed

as duplicative, without any financial obligation. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within

thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00270-OWW-WMW Document 9 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2