(PC) Mundy v. Cavello ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STANLEY W. MUNDY, No. 2:23-cv-0061 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PATRICK COVELLO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. See ECF 19 Nos. 1 (“Mundy II” complaint), 6 (in forma pauperis application). The matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 A review of the complaint reveals that it is identical to the one filed in Mundy v. City and 22 County of Sacramento, No. 2:23-cv-0059 CKD (“Mundy I”). Compare Mundy II, ECF No. 1, 23 with Mundy I, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions 24 involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same 25 defendants. Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) 26 overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). Therefore, it will be 27 recommended that the instant matter be dismissed. 28 //// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a 2 || District Judge to this action. 3 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED as duplicative of the 4 || earlier-filed Mundy v. City and County of Sacramento, No. 2:23-cv-0059 CKD. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 7 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 8 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 9 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff □□ advised that failure to file objections within the specified 10 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 11 | (9th Cir. 1991). 12 | DATED: July 28, 2023 ~ 13 AMhen—lChore ALLISON CLAIRE 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28