IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 6, 2009
SIDNEY ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF,
J. WALKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A review of the court's dockets reveals that this action is duplicative of E.D. Cal. case no. CIV S-08-1838-JAM-DAD-P ("prior action"). The instant action was filed on August 25, 2008. The prior action was filed on August 7, 2008. On December 1, 2008, plaintiff filed a request for voluntary dismissal of the prior action, which was dismissed without prejudice on December 10, 2008. Given this timeline, it is clear that plaintiff did not intend the instant action as a re-initiation of his claims. Rather, the instant action appears to have been a duplicative filing of claims which plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, as duplicative of E.D. Cal. case no. CIV S-08-1838-JAM-DAD-P.
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 20 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.