(PC) Johnson v. Solano County Sheriff ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES L. JOHNSON, JR., No. 2:22-cv-02220-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 17, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiff and contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations. 28 The magistrate judge recommends dismissal because the complaint is “nearly identical” to a 1 || complaint in an earlier filed action. Findings and Recommendations at 1, ECF No. 9. However, 2 || the fact an action is duplicative does not compel dismissal. See L.R. 123 (explaining procedure 3 || for cases to be reassigned when they are “related”). Accordingly, the court orders the parties to 4 | file a Joint Status Report within fourteen days as to whether this case should be related or 5 || consolidated with Johnson v. Solano County Sheriff, 2:22-cv-2061-DAD-CKD. 6 || DATED: July 10, 2023. 9 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28