From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reed v. Runnels

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 13, 2007
No. CIV S-05-0932 FCD KJM P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007)

Opinion

No. CIV S-05-0932 FCD KJM P.

April 13, 2007


FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS


Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se, challenging the loss of good time credits stemming from a disciplinary hearing held on January 18, 2004. Plaintiff's habeas petition was filed with the court on May 12, 2005. The court's own records reveal that on November 17, 2004, plaintiff filed a petition attacking the same disciplinary hearing. (No. Civ. S-04-2480 FCD KJM P). Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend that the complaint in the action be dismissed.

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).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY 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 twenty 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).


Summaries of

Reed v. Runnels

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 13, 2007
No. CIV S-05-0932 FCD KJM P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007)
Case details for

Reed v. Runnels

Case Details

Full title:ALONZO REED, Petitioner, v. D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Apr 13, 2007

Citations

No. CIV S-05-0932 FCD KJM P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007)