Ingram v. City of Sacramento, et al

Filing 6

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/27/2012. The 4 Status/Scheduling Conference set for 9/26/2012 is VACATED. This action is STAYED pending District Judge John A. Mendez's review of F/Rs. Court is also RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed as duplicative. Within 14 days after being served with these F/Rs, any party may file written Objections with Court and serve a copy on all parties. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHADERICK A. INGRAM,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

vs.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

14

ORDER AND

Defendants.

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/

16
17

No. CIV S-12-1089 JAM CKD PS

This action was removed to this court on April 25, 2012. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to this court by E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21).

18

In this action, plaintiff alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of

19

Sacramento; County Medically Indigent Services Program; Motel 6; Social Security

20

Administration; Economy Inn; and the United States of America. However, this complaint is

21

identical to the complaint filed on April 4, 2012 in Ingram v. City of Sacramento, CIV S-12-0864

22

KJM GGH, Dkt. No. 1. In fact, the April 4, 2012 complaint from the previous case contains the

23

same case caption and “filed” stamp from the Sacramento County Superior Court as the

24

complaint in this case, suggesting that plaintiff merely filed the same complaint in both courts,

25

with the instant state court case subsequently having been removed to this court.

26

\\\\\
1

1
2

This action is therefore duplicative of plaintiff’s previously filed action, which is
still pending. The court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed as duplicative.

3

Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The status/scheduling conference set for September 26, 2012 is vacated;

5

2. This action is stayed pending the district judge’s review of these findings and

6

recommendations; and

7

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as duplicative.

8

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

9

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

10

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

11

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

12

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the

13

objections shall be served and filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The

14

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

15

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

16

Dated: April 27, 2012

17

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22

CKD/5
ingram.1089.dup.wpd

23
24
25
26
2