Carroll v. Brown et al
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/26/2013 DENYING plaintiff's 10 motion for an extension of time, as unnecessary; and RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 11 motion to proceed ifp be DENIED; all other pending motions (Doc. Nos. 9 and 12 ) be denied without prejudice to refiling in Case No. 2:12-cv-1327 KJN; and this action be dismissed as duplicative. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TREMAYNE D. CARROLL,
No. 2:12-cv-2584 TLN DAD P
EDMUND G. BROWN et al.,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that prison staff (the “Green Wall” staff) has
subjected him to manufactured charges and physical/sexual abuse. He further alleges that prison
staff has failed to protect him and violated his rights under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments. The court’s own records reveal that plaintiff previously filed a complaint
Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file his motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. Plaintiff timely filed his motion to proceed in forma pauperis shortly thereafter.
Accordingly, the court will deny his motion for an extension of time as unnecessary.
containing virtually identical allegations. (Case No. 2:12-cv-1327 KJN).2 Due to the duplicative
nature of the present action, the court will recommend that all pending motions in this case be
denied without prejudice to refiling in Case No. 2:12-cv-1327 KJN and that the duplicative
complaint filed under this case number be dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension
of time to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 10) is denied as unnecessary;
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 11) be denied;
2. All other pending motions (Doc. Nos. 9 & 12) be denied without prejudice to
refiling in Case No. 2:12-cv-1327 KJN; and
3. This action be dismissed as duplicative.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned
to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being
served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the
court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendations.” Plaintiff 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
DATED: August 26, 2013.
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).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?