Langston v. California Department of Correction

Full title: WALTER LANGSTON, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jul 27, 2015

2:15-cv-1510 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2015)

Opinion

WALTER LANGSTON, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., Defendants. No. 2:15-cv-1510 DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. July 27, 2015

          ORDER & FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's complaint was filed with the court on July 14, 2015. The court's own records reveal that on July 6, 2015, plaintiff filed a complaint containing virtually identical allegations in case no. 2:15-cv-1437 KJN P.¹ Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend that the complaint in this later filed action be dismissed.

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).

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to 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)(1). 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).