From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. Jones

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 1, 2022
2:22-cv-1640 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-1640 KJN P

11-01-2022

JAVAUGHN ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. TY JONES, et al., Defendants.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff's complaint was filed with the court on September 7, 2022. The court's own records reveal that on September 21, 2022, plaintiff filed a complaint containing virtually identical allegations. (2:22-cv-1717 KJM CKD).Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend that the complaint 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).

Generally, a plaintiff's claims would proceed in the earlier-filed action. However, in plaintiff's case no. 2:22-cv-1717 KJM CKD, the assigned magistrate judge ordered service of process on defendants and recommended dismissal of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims, and a district judge has been assigned. Because this case addresses an incident that took place on May 5, 2022, there are no statute of limitations concerns that would preclude plaintiff proceeding in case no. 2:22-cv01717 KJM CKD.

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).


Summaries of

Robinson v. Jones

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 1, 2022
2:22-cv-1640 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022)
Case details for

Robinson v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:JAVAUGHN ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. TY JONES, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 1, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-1640 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022)