Opinion
No. 2:13-cv-0198 CKD P
02-08-2013
ISABEL TUBACH, Plaintiff, v. JERRY BROWN, Defendant.
ORDER AND
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff's complaint was filed on February 1, 2013. The court's records reveal that on November 19, 2012, plaintiff filed a complaint in Case No. 2:12-cv-2830 KJN P containing essentially the same allegations against defendant Brown as in the instant complaint. That action was dismissed as duplicative on January 18, 2013. Because the present action is also duplicative, the court will recommend that the complaint be dismissed. See Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) ("District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and in the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default and dismissal.") (affirming dismissal of duplicative later-filed action) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
The court noted that plaintiff raised similar allegations against defendant Brown in Case Nos. 1:12-cv-0649 MJS P, 1:12-cv-1369 DLB, and 1:12-cv-1373 GBC. Court records indicate that plaintiff is a party to 153 cases in the Eastern District of California, numerous of which name Brown as a defendant. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 802 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may take judicial notice of court records).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court assign a district judge to this action.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT this action be dismissed.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 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).
____________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE