Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03102/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03102-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alex Leonard Azevedo
Plaintiff
Anne Walton
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX LEONARD AZEVEDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNE WALTON,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-3102 CSK P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed with the 

court on November 8, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Walton altered transcripts of 

plaintiff’s confidential Marsden hearing on March 1, 2021. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) The Court’s own 

records reveal that on October 31, 2024, plaintiff filed a complaint in a separate action alleging 

that defendant Anne Walton altered transcripts of plaintiff’s confidential Marsden hearing on 

March 1, 2021. Azevedo v. Nelson, No. 2:24-cv-2995 AC (E.D. Cal.) (ECF No. 1 at 7).

1

 Due to 

the duplicative nature of the present action, the Court recommends that the complaint be 

dismissed.

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

a district judge to this case; and

1 A 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-03102-TLN-CSK Document 5 Filed 11/15/24 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

IT IS 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 fourteen 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: November 14, 2024

/1/azev3102.23

Case 2:24-cv-03102-TLN-CSK Document 5 Filed 11/15/24 Page 2 of 2