Jansen v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al

Filing 9

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/16/13 ORDERING that the clerk of the court randomly assign a District Judge to this action. U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller randomly assigned to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MICHAEL E. JANSEN,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:13-cv-00698 KJN P

vs.

14

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION,
et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER and
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

16

/

17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff’s complaint and

18

in forma pauperis application were filed on January 18, 2013, in the United States District Court

19

for the Northern District of California, and transferred to this court on April 9, 2013. However,

20

the court’s records1 reveal that, meanwhile, on February 28, 2013, plaintiff also filed in the

21

Northern District a separate in forma pauperis application, and complaint containing virtually

22

identical allegations to those asserted herein, which were transferred to this court on March 13,

23

2013. (Case No. 2:13-cv-0500 EFB P.) In the instant case, no action has been taken on the

24

complaint or plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application. However, in plaintiff’s other pending

25
1

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

case, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted, and plaintiff has filed a

2

First Amended Complaint, pursuant to the court’s order filed March 25, 2013; in addition, in his

3

other pending case, plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge for all

4

purposes.

5

While the instant action was commenced before plaintiff’s other pending action,

6

the latter case was earlier transferred to this court, and is currently on track. Therefore, due to the

7

duplicative nature of the instant action, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.

8
9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to
randomly assign a district judge to this case; and

10
11

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

12

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned

13

to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being

14

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the

15

court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

16

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

17

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

18

Cir. 1991).

19

DATED: April 16, 2013

20
21

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23

jans0698.23

24
25
26
2