(PC) Neumann v. Tilton, No. 2:2007cv00099 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2007)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that pltf's motion for appointment of counsel be denied; pltf's 2 application to proceed IFP be denied and this case be dismissed without prejudice; objections due 20 days after being served with these F&Rs; signed by Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/22/07. (Kirkpatrick, S)

Download PDF
(PC) Neumann v. Tilton Doc. 4 Case 2:07-cv-00099-GEB-DAD Document 4 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHARLES NEUMANN, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0099 GEB DAD P vs. TILTON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. The above-captioned action was 17 commenced in the Northern District of California on November 3, 2006, when an in forma 18 pauperis application and a motion for appointment of counsel were filed. Although both 19 documents appear to have included the case number of an action commenced by plaintiff in the 20 Northern District on August 24, 2006, a new case was opened. Both cases have been transferred 21 to the Eastern District of California. The earlier filed case was filed in the Eastern District on 22 January 12, 2007, and was assigned case No. CIV S-07-0082 DFL CMK P. The later filed case, 23 was filed in the Eastern District on January 16, 2007, and was assigned case No. CIV S-07-0099 24 GEB DAD P. 25 26 A review of the filings in the transferred cases reveals that the second case is duplicative. The motion in case No. CIV S-07-0099 asserts deprivation of adequate dental care 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:07-cv-00099-GEB-DAD Document 4 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 2 of 2 1 and seeks an order appointing counsel in an action concerning poor emergency dental care. The 2 complaint in case No. CIV S-07-0082 concerns deprivation of proper dental care. On the basis 3 of the court’s own records,1 the undersigned finds that case No. CIV S-07-0099 is duplicative of 4 case No. CIV S-07-0082. Case No. CIV S-07-0099 should be dismissed without prejudice to 5 further proceedings in case No. CIV S-07-0082. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 6 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel be denied; 8 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied; and 9 3. This case be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of case No. CIV S-07- 10 0082 DFL CMK. 11 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the District Judge 12 assigned to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days 13 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 14 with the court. Any document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate 15 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 16 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez 17 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 DATED: January 22, 2007. 19 20 21 22 DAD:13 neum0099.23 23 24 25 1 26 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). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.