Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00500/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00500-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WILSON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0500 MCE DAD P

vs.

M. MARTEL, 

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On January 30, 2007, plaintiff commenced this civil rights action in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of California by filing a motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court in the Northern District sent plaintiff a notice

informing him that he was required to file a complaint to proceed with the case and ordered him

to do so within the time allowed. Upon receiving and reviewing the complaint, the Northern

District transferred the case to this court, which has proper venue. In its transfer order, the court

noted that plaintiff had filed a previous case, naming the same defendants, which had also been

transferred to this court a week prior. The court explained that the Clerk of the Court may have

opened this case as a separate case by mistake.

Upon review of plaintiff’s complaint, the court finds that plaintiff names the same

ten defendants named in his complaint in Case No. Civ. S-07-0497 RRB CMK P. Plaintiff has

not included specific allegations in his complaint in this case, and instead, he refers the court to

Case 2:07-cv-00500-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 03/03/08 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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 1

803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

2

his “attached complaint.” Although there is no complaint attached to the filing, plaintiff’s

references to pages three through sixteen for his statement of claim and pages seventeen through

twenty-one for his request for relief correspond directly to the appropriate pages in the complaint

in Case No. Civ. S-07-0497 RRB CMK P. Based on the similarities of the complaints, the court

finds that this case is duplicative of Case No. Civ. S-07-0497 RRB CMK P. Due to the 1

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

dismissed. If plaintiff desires additional relief from the defendants, he should seek leave to

amend his complaint in Case No. Civ. S-07-0497 RRB CMK P.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action

be dismissed without prejudice. 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 twenty 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 3, 2008.

DAD:9

wils0500.23

Case 2:07-cv-00500-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 2