Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Watson v. Schwarzenegger

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 11, 2010

GREGORY WATSON ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
A. SCHWARZENEGGER ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On February 3, 2010, defendants Schwarzenegger and Cate removed this action from state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Defendants have filed a request, asking the court to screen plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and asking the court for thirty days from the date of the court's screening order to file a response to the complaint.

REMOVAL

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides that: any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.

Plaintiffs are state prisoners proceeding pro se. In their complaint, they allege that the defendants have violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. They seek a court order barring the defendants from reducing funding for certain California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation programs. Specifically, plaintiffs seek a twelve-month injunction barring any reduction in education, vocation, and self-help programs in California state prisons. They also seek an order prohibiting any retaliation against them for filing this cause of action. Because plaintiffs allege a violation of federal constitutional rights, defendants have properly removed this action from state court.

SCREENING AND DISCUSSION

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). As noted above, on February 3, 2010, defendants commenced this action by removing this case from state court. However, the court's own records reveal that prior to the removal of this action, on January 15, 2010, plaintiffs filed a complaint containing virtually identical allegations against the same defendants in this court. (Case No. CIV S-10-0123 KJM P).*fn1 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend that plaintiffs' complaint in this action be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' February 3, 2010 request to screen the complaint (Doc. No. 1) is granted;

2. Defendants' February 3, 2010 request for an extension of time to respond to the complaint (Doc. No. 1) is denied as unnecessary; and

3. 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).

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 twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are 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).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.