Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00928/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00928-0/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 

EDWARD BRIDGEMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. FOX, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0928 AC P 

ORDER & FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

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

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma 

pauperis and makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 2. However, the 

court will not assess a filing fee at this time. Instead, the court will recommend that the complaint 

will be summarily dismissed because it is duplicative of an earlier filed complaint. 

Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on April 21, 2016.1

 ECF No. 1. The court’s own records 

reveal that on December 3, 2015, plaintiff filed a complaint containing virtually identical 

allegations in Bridgeman v. Department of California Correction, No. 2:15-cv-02579 JAM AC. 

See United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[A] court may take judicial 

notice of its own records in other cases.”). Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the 

 

1

 Since plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox rule. See 

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 

Case 2:16-cv-00928-JAM-AC Document 4 Filed 05/10/16 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

court will recommend that the instant complaint be dismissed. 

 A review of the record in Bridgeman v. Department of California Correction shows that 

the complaint in that action was dismissed with leave to amend. No. 2:15-cv-02579 JAM AC at 

ECF No. 10. If plaintiff wants to pursue the claims he tried to make in this case, he needs to do 

so by filing an amended complaint in Bridgeman v. Department of California Correction, No. 

2:15-cv-02579 JAM AC, as he was instructed. He should not initiate a new lawsuit. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. A filing fee will not be assessed in this case due to the recommendation that the case be 

dismissed summarily because it is duplicative of an earlier filed case. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. 

 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice as 

duplicative of Bridgeman v. Department of California Correction, Case No. 2:15-cv-02579 JAM 

AC. 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: May 9, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-00928-JAM-AC Document 4 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 2