(PC) Cortinas v. Soltanian ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, No. 2:20-cv-1071 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JALLA SOLTANIAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint was docketed with the 18 court on May 27, 2020. The court’s own records reveal that on the same day plaintiff filed a 19 complaint containing identical allegations. See Cortinas v. Soltanian, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv- 20 1067 EFB (E.D. Cal.).1 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will 21 recommend that the complaint be dismissed. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied as moot. 24 2. The Clerk of the Court randomly assign this matter to a district court judge. 25 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice as 26 duplicative. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 27 1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 28 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 2 OU UV MEME LOY RON NEE MIU I eA ee 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this 2 || case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days after being served 3 | with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 4 | The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 6 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 7 | Cir. 1991). 8 | Dated: June 1, 2020 bh rdf ht / {a— ? CAROLYN K.DELANEY. 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 12/ cort1071.23.docx 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28