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.

Michael E. Jansen v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

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


April 16, 2013

MICHAEL E. JANSEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER and FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff's complaint and in forma pauperis application were filed on January 18, 2013, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and transferred to this court on April 9, 2013. However, the court's records*fn1 reveal that, meanwhile, on February 28, 2013, plaintiff also filed in the Northern District a separate in forma pauperis application, and complaint containing virtually identical allegations to those asserted herein, which were transferred to this court on March 13, 2013. (Case No. 2:13-cv-0500 EFB P.) In the instant case, no action has been taken on the complaint or plaintiff's in forma pauperis application. However, in plaintiff's other pending case, plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted, and plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint, pursuant to the court's order filed March 25, 2013; in addition, in his other pending case, plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge for all purposes.

While the instant action was commenced before plaintiff's other pending action, the latter case was earlier transferred to this court, and is currently on track. Therefore, due to the duplicative nature of the instant action, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.

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

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

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 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.