(PC) Flores v. CCWF ( 2020 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 ENID MARIE FLORES, 1:19-cv-01681-AWI-JDP 6 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS, ORDER 7 DISMISSING CASE, and ORDER DENYING vs. PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT 8 CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL (Doc. Nos. 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25) 9 WOMEN’S FACILITY, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Enid Marie Flores (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 13 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 14 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 15 On June 12, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered findings and recommendations, 16 recommending that this case be dismissed as frivolous because it is duplicative of another active 17 case. (Doc. No. 22.) On June 29, 2020, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 26.) 18 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 19 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 20 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 21 This case is improperly duplicative of Case No. 1:19-cv1509 NONE JLT, which makes dismissal 22 appropriate.1 See Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 23 2007). Additionally, there are several motions that remain pending. With the dismissal of this 24 case pursuant, these pending motions will all be denied as moot. 25 26 27 1 The Findings and Recommendation classified this case as “frivolous” because it was duplicative of an earlier filed case. However, the Court respectfully disagrees that the case is “frivolous.” The 28 case is merely duplicative and thus, subject to dismissal. Therefore, the Court will not adopt the conclusion that his case is “frivolous.” wOoOw 4:40 VV LUE VERA MVOC CO POC Ie OY Ov 1 ORDER 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations entered by the Magistrate Judge on June 12, 4 2020 (Doc. No. 22) are ADOPTED as discussed above; 5 2. This case is DISMISSED as improperly duplicative of Case No. 1:19-cv-1509 6 NONE JLT; 7 3, All pending motions (Doc. Nos. 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 25) are DENIED as moot; 8 and 9 4. The Clerk is directed to close this case. 10 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: _ September 9, 2020 Z Cb L ¢ SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28