Ramos v. Ives

Filing 4

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/21/10 ORDERING the clerk of the court shall randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this action. U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb randomly assigned to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ERNESTO RAMOS, Petitioner, vs. RICHARD B. IVES, Respondent. / Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner filed his petition on April 13, 2010. The court's own records reveal that on April 12, 2010, petitioner filed a petition containing virtually identical allegations against the same respondent. (No. CIV S-10-0848 KJN P).1 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend that the petition be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS No. CIV S-10-0871 DAD P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
DAD:9 ramo0871.123

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: April 21, 2010.

2