Opinion
No. 2:13-cv-00698 KJN P
04-16-2013
MICHAEL E. JANSEN, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER and
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff's complaint and in forma pauperis application were filed on January 18, 2013, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and transferred to this court on April 9, 2013. However, the court's records reveal that, meanwhile, on February 28, 2013, plaintiff also filed in the Northern District a separate in forma pauperis application, and complaint containing virtually identical allegations to those asserted herein, which were transferred to this court on March 13, 2013. (Case No. 2:13-cv-0500 EFB P.) In the instant case, no action has been taken on the complaint or plaintiff's in forma pauperis application. However, in plaintiff's other pending case, plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted, and plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint, pursuant to the court's order filed March 25, 2013; in addition, in his other pending case, plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge for all purposes.
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).
While the instant action was commenced before plaintiff's other pending action, the latter case was earlier transferred to this court, and is currently on track. Therefore, due to the duplicative nature of the instant action, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.
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 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).
_______________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE