(PC) Saragoza v. Doe ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENITO JOSE SARAGOZA, No. 1:23-cv-00496-ADA-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 14 JOHN DOE, et al., ADMINISTRATIVE DISMISSAL 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 4) 16 17 Plaintiff Benito Jose Saragoza is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 7, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that 21 recommended dismissing this action as duplicative of a pending case that Plaintiff filed on March 22 6, 2023, Saragoza v. John Doe No. 1, No. 1:23-cv-00355-BAM. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff filed 23 objections on April 26, 2023, asking the Court to take into consideration his pro se status, lack of 24 knowledge of legal terms and case law, and his inability to access the law library. (ECF No. 5.) 25 As the Magistrate Judge explained in the findings and recommendations, this case is so 26 similar to No. 1:23-cv-00355-BAM that Plaintiff is not entitled to maintain both actions. Adams 27 v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 28 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 1 | 904 (2008). Because the earlier case, No. 1:23-cv-00355-BAM, seeks identical relief and remains 2 | open, dismissal of this case does not prejudice Plaintiff. Plaintiff is advised that he should 3 | continue to comply with orders and adhere to deadlines in Case No. 1:23-cv-00355-BAM, which 4 || remains open and is not affected by this order. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 6 | de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiffs 7 | objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 8 | proper analysis. 9 Accordingly, 10 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 7, 2023, (ECF No. 4), are 11 adopted, in full; 12 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close this case as duplicative of 13 No. 1:23-cv-00355-BAM; and 14 3. This order has no effect on any deadlines or orders in No. 1:23-cv-00355-BAM. 15 16 17 | TIS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: _ July 17, 2023 19 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28