From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chappa v. Vangerwin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 30, 2020
No. 2:20-cv-0413 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:20-cv-0413 KJN P

03-30-2020

ANTHONY CHAPPA, Plaintiff, v. VANGERWIN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff's complaint was filed with the court on February 24, 2020. As discussed in this court's initial screening order issued concurrently herewith, the court's own records reveal that on February 20, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint containing virtually identical allegations concerning the use of excessive force by defendants Vangerwin and McQuillan at the Shasta County Jail on July 19, 2019. Chappa v. Shasta County Sheriff, Case No. 2:20-cv-0379 AC P (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff included such allegations in the first cause of action set forth in his original complaint filed herein. (ECF No. 1.) Due to the duplicative nature of plaintiff's first claim, the court recommends that plaintiff's first cause of action be dismissed as duplicative of his prior action, Case No. 2:20-cv-0379 AC P. ////

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 the first cause of action in plaintiff's original complaint (ECF No. 1 at 3) be dismissed from this action 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 thirty 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: March 30, 2020 /chap0413.23

/s/_________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Chappa v. Vangerwin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 30, 2020
No. 2:20-cv-0413 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020)
Case details for

Chappa v. Vangerwin

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY CHAPPA, Plaintiff, v. VANGERWIN, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 30, 2020

Citations

No. 2:20-cv-0413 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020)