Thomas v. Ogbuehi et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING Action as Duplicative of Case Number 1:15-cv-01059-LJO-DLB, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/19/16. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSH THOMAS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
C. OGBUEHI, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01845-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS
DUPLICATIVE OF CASE NUMBER 1:15-CV01059-LJO-DLB (PC)

Plaintiff Josh Thomas is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1983.
Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 10, 2015. On January 5, 2016, the Court granted

19
20

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, despite having suffered three or more strikes

21

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), based on a showing he is under imminent danger of serious physical

22

injury. (Doc. No. 4.) The Court has yet to screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff has previously filed an action in this

23
24

Court in case number 1:15-cv-01059-LJO-DLB (PC), Thomas v. Ogbehi, et.al.1 That case was

25
26
27
28

1

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits the Court to take judicial notice at any time. A judicially noticed fact must be one
not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either: (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court;
or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources who accuracy reasonably cannot be questioned.
Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Courts may take judicial notice of facts related to the case before it. Amphibious Partners, LLC v.
Redman, 534 F.3d 1357, 1361-1362 (10th Cir. 2008) (district court was entitled to take judicial notice of its memorandum

1

1

dismissed, without prejudice, to re-filing with the filing fee on July 14, 2015. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff

2

filed a motion for reconsideration on August 13, 2015, which was denied on August 31, 2015. (Doc.

3

Nos. 6 & 7.) Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal on September 15, 2015. (Doc. 8.) On February 22,

4

2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the action

5

finding “the district court erred in denying appellant leave to amend his complaint without making a

6

finding that amendment would be futile.” (Doc. 18, Order at 2.) On March 29, 2016, the case was

7

reopened, and Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 20.) In response to the

8

Court’s order, Plaintiff filed a notice on April 18, 2016, indicating that he filed his new case as

9

previously instructed in case number 1:15-cv-01845-LJO-SAB (PC), Thomas v. Ogbechi, et al.

10

Based on a review of record, the instant action is duplicative of case number 1:15-cv-01059-LJO-DLB

11

(PC), which was reopened on March 29, 2016, and Plaintiff’s claims shall proceed in that action.

12

Accordingly, the instant action is DISMISSED as duplicative.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

April 19, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

of order and judgment from previous case involving same parties). This Court may judicially notice the records and filing
of other court proceedings. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Bennett v. Medtronic,
Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 802 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002).

28
2