(PC)Miller v. Mule Creek State Prison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIJAH LEE MILLER, No. 2:21-cv-02104 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed with the court 18 on November 15, 2021. The court’s own records reveal that plaintiff filed a complaint containing 19 identical allegations in another case initiated in this court previously, on October 29, 2021, No. 20 2:21-cv-2002 JAM DMC.1 The complaints are identical. The only difference is the placement of 21 the exhibits in the pleading. (See Id.) Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court 22 will recommend it be dismissed. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign 24 a district judge to this case; and 25 //// 26 //// 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). 1 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. 2 | P.41(b). 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this 4 | case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days after being served 5 || with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 6 || The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 7 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 8 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 9 | 1991). 10 | Dated: February 11, 2022 11 12 13 | minzio12s 'BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28