(PC) Herrera v. Wheeler, et al, No. 2:2010cv01280 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/1/2010 ORDERING the clerk to randomly assign a US District Judge to this action; and RECOMMENDING that pltf's cmplt be dismissed w/out prejudice, and the clerk be directed to close this case. Assigned and Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due w/in 21 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Herrera v. Wheeler, et al Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT HERRERA, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-1280 DAD P vs. B. WHEELER, et al., 14 ORDER AND Defendants. 15 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed with 17 the court on May 24, 2010. The court’s own records reveal that on May 13, 2010, plaintiff filed 18 another complaint containing virtually identical allegations against the same defendants. (See 19 Case No. Civ. S-10-1181 JFM P).1 Specifically, plaintiff alleges in both complaints that: 20 On April 17, 2009, an incident took place in which I was accused of [a] CDC115, committing battery on [a] correctional ASU officer at this institution (H.D.S.P.) (please see CDC 115 incident report marked as exhibits “C”), in which excessive [force] was used on me and [I] was beaten by several officers[;] officer Wheeler along with other officers punched me on my face several times [] which caused pain and bru[i]ses on my face. 21 22 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). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend that this complaint be dismissed. 3 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. 5 Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice; and 7 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned 9 to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days after 10 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 11 the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 12 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 13 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 14 Cir. 1991). 15 DATED: June 1, 2010. 16 17 18 19 DAD:sj herr1280.23 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
