Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01513/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01513-1/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHANNON, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 1513 AWI SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE OF

CV F 05 1485 REC WMW P (Docs. 1)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT

ALL PENDING MOTIONS BE DENIED AS

MOOT (Doc. 2, 5.) 

 Raymond Wright (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on November 28,

2005. 

On December 23, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting clarification of duplicate case

numbers in both cases. In this action, the Court issued an Order disregarding the Motion for

Clarification as it appeared to the Court that Plaintiff mistakenly believed that the Court had

assigned the same case number to two separate cases but was merely referencing a conformed

copy of the Complaint filed in the instant action. However, upon further review, it appears that

Plaintiff meant that two separate case numbers were assigned to the same Complaint. A review

of the Court record reveals that Plaintiff is correct. 

On November 22, 2005, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint which was assigned the

case no. CV F 05 1485 REC WMW P. On November 28, 2005, the Court received and assigned

Case 1:05-cv-01513-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 02/08/06 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

27

28

1Currently pending are two Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Docs. 2, 5.) 

2

case no. CV F 05 1513 AWI SMS P to the instant case. A review of the Complaints filed in

both of these actions reveals that the Complaints are identical. As a result, the Court will

recommend the dismissal of the instant action as it was filed subsequent to the identical

Complaint filed on November 22, 2005, and assigned case no. CV F 05-1485 REC WMW P. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the instant action, CV F 05 1513 AWI

SMS P, be DISMISSED as duplicative of case no. CV F 05 1485 REC WMW P. The Court also

recommends that all pending Motions be denied as moot.1

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within FIFTEEN (15) days after being served with

a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party 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.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01513-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2