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.

Wooten v. Sokohou

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


November 18, 2010

MARIO NGWAZI WOOTEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MIKE GREGORY SOKOHOU, DEFENDANTS.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On October 27, 2010, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending dismissal of this action due to plaintiff's failure to file a properly completed in forma pauperis ("IFP") application. On November 8, 2010, plaintiff filed objections to those findings and recommendations, claiming that the court had granted him an extension of time to file his IFP application.

Plaintiff has two actions pending in this court, the instant case and Case No. CIV S-10-2138 DAD P. In the latter case, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file his IFP application, which the court granted. However, plaintiff failed to file a similar request in this case. Typically, in the interest of justice, the court would vacate the findings and recommendations in this case and grant plaintiff additional time to file his IFP application. However, upon further review of this case and Case No. CIV S-10-2138 DAD P, the court finds that plaintiff's complaints contain virtually identical allegations against the same defendant.*fn1

The court will vacate its October 27, 2010 findings and recommendations. However, the court will also recommend that the complaint in this case be dismissed because it is duplicative.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court's October 27, 2010 findings and recommendations are vacated;

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of Case No. CIV S-10-2138 DAD P. 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, 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 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.