Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00771/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00771-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Megan Lowry
Defendant
Dominique Merriman
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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DOMINIQUE MERRIMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MEGAN LOWRY, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:20-cv-0771 AC P 

ORDER and 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint in this case was filed 

on April 15, 2020, and challenges the conduct of psychologist and sole defendant M. Lowry on 

February 11, 2019. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff is currently proceeding on the same claim and related 

claims against defendant Lowry and others in another action he earlier filed in this court. See 

Merriman v. Lowry et al., Case No. 19-1445 TLN KJN (see e.g., ECF No. 8 at 3).1 Due to the 

duplicative nature of the instant case, the undersigned will recommend that this action be 

dismissed. 

//// 

1

 This court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of other courts. See 

United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Wilson, 631 

F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201 (court may take judicial notice of facts 

that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned). 

Case 2:20-cv-00771-JAM-AC Document 3 Filed 04/20/20 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 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to 

randomly assign a district judge to this case; and 

 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-one (21) 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: April 20, 2020 

Case 2:20-cv-00771-JAM-AC Document 3 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 2