(PC) Flores v. CCWF et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING Findings and Recommendations, ORDER dismissing Case and denying pending Motions as moot 14 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 25 signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/9/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

ENID MARIE FLORES,

6

Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

vs.
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL
WOMEN’S FACILITY, et al.,

1:19-cv-01681-AWI-JDP
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, ORDER
DISMISSING CASE, and ORDER DENYING
PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT
(Doc. Nos. 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25)

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
28

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
case is merely duplicative and thus, subject to dismissal. Therefore, the Court will not adopt the conclusion that
his case is “frivolous.”
1

1

1

ORDER

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4
5

2020 (Doc. No. 22) are ADOPTED as discussed above;
2.

6
7

This case is DISMISSED as improperly duplicative of Case No. 1:19-cv-1509
NONE JLT;

3.

8
9

The findings and recommendations entered by the Magistrate Judge on June 12,

All pending motions (Doc. Nos. 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 25) are DENIED as moot;
and

4.

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 9, 2020
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2