Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02395/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02395-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Hall
Defendant
Mike Morgan
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKE MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. HALL,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-CV-2395-DMC-P

ORDER

and

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court's record reflect that Plaintiff is proceeding in another action in this 

Court based on virtually identical allegations. See Morgan v. Espinoza, et al., Eastern Dist. Cal. 

case no. 2:23-cv-1955-DAD-DMC-P.1 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the 

Court will recommend that it be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also

Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (plaintiffs generally 

have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time 

in the same court and against the same defendant); overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. 

Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008); Higgins v. Medina, 2007 WL 4258362, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 

1 The 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 2:24-cv-02395-DC-DMC Document 9 Filed 10/18/24 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

3, 2007) (dismissing complaint as duplicative of complaint filed in separate action). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends orders and recommends as 

follows:

1. It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly 

assign a District Judge to this case. 

2. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice to 

Plaintiff's ability to pursue his claims in Morgan v. Espinoza, et al., E.D. Cal. case no. 2:23-cv1955-DAD-DMC-P.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 

with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 

Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: October 17, 2024

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02395-DC-DMC Document 9 Filed 10/18/24 Page 2 of 2