Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00099/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00099-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Neumann
Plaintiff
Tilton
Defendant

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES NEUMANN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0099 GEB DAD P

vs.

TILTON, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. The above-captioned action was

commenced in the Northern District of California on November 3, 2006, when an in forma

pauperis application and a motion for appointment of counsel were filed. Although both

documents appear to have included the case number of an action commenced by plaintiff in the

Northern District on August 24, 2006, a new case was opened. Both cases have been transferred

to the Eastern District of California. The earlier filed case was filed in the Eastern District on

January 12, 2007, and was assigned case No. CIV S-07-0082 DFL CMK P. The later filed case,

was filed in the Eastern District on January 16, 2007, and was assigned case No. CIV S-07-0099

GEB DAD P.

A review of the filings in the transferred cases reveals that the second case is

duplicative. The motion in case No. CIV S-07-0099 asserts deprivation of adequate dental care

Case 2:07-cv-00099-GEB-DAD Document 4 Filed 01/22/07 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

and seeks an order appointing counsel in an action concerning poor emergency dental care. The

complaint in case No. CIV S-07-0082 concerns deprivation of proper dental care. On the basis

of the court’s own records, the undersigned finds that case No. CIV S-07-0099 is duplicative of 1

case No. CIV S-07-0082. Case No. CIV S-07-0099 should be dismissed without prejudice to

further proceedings in case No. CIV S-07-0082. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel be denied;

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied; and

3. This case be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of case No. CIV S-07-

0082 DFL CMK.

These findings and recommendations will be 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. Any document containing objections should be titled “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. See Martinez

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

DATED: January 22, 2007.

DAD:13

neum0099.23

Case 2:07-cv-00099-GEB-DAD Document 4 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 2