Source: https://casetext.com/case/anderson-v-pastuna-2
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:55:43+00:00

Document:
ARNOLD ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. C. PASTUNA, et al., Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), filed on July 12, 2018. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Judge to Correct Errors in this Case (ECF No. 3), Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 4), filed on September 19, 2018, and Plaintiff's Motion to Extend 120 Day Service (ECF No. 6), filed on October 24, 2018.
On March 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) in another case against all of the same named Defendants. See Anderson v. Patsuna, Case No. 2:17-cv-00808-APG-GWF. On June 25, 2018, the Court granted Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and screened his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Id. at ECF No. 3. The Court allowed Plaintiff's claim for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights based on a warrantless arrest issued without probable cause to proceed against Defendants Pastuna, Auschwitz, Bryant, and Valenzuela in their individual capacity. Id. The Court recommended that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant District Attorney Binu Palal be dismissed with prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. On August 3, 2018, the Court accepted the undersigned's recommendation. See ECF No. 9. Further, the Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's claim against Defendants Pastuna, Auschwitz, Bryant, and Valenzuela, in their official capacity, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint correcting noted deficiencies by July 23, 2018.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Errors (ECF No. 3), Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 4), and Motion to Extend 120 Day Service (ECF No. 6) are denied without prejudice to Plaintiff filing such motions in Case No. 2:17-cv-00808-APG-GWF.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed as duplicative.
Under Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. Appeals may been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). Failure to file objections within the specified time or failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
Dated this 28th day of December, 2018.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v.