Opinion
No. 2:14-cv-00699 GEB KJN P
04-11-2014
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with this habeas corpus action. Plaintiff initiated this action pursuant to a civil rights complaint. See Tillman v. Superior Court, Case No. 2:13-cv-00961 MCE DAD P. On March 17, 2014, that action was dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court directed to re-file, in a separate habeas action, plaintiff's subsequently-filed petition for writ of habeas corpus (filed during the interim between the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations and the district judge's final order). That petition forms the basis of the instant action.
However, the court's records reveal that, on March 5, 2014, plaintiff filed another habeas corpus action containing virtually identical claims. See Tillman v. Board of Parole Hearings, Case No. 2:14-cv-00615-GGH P. Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
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).
Accordingly, 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 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).
__________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE