(PC) Garland v. Skribner et al, No. 1:2006cv00270 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2006)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice as duplicative. Referred to Judge Wanger, Objections to F&R due by 4/21/2006, signed by Judge William M. Wunderlich on 3/16/06. (Robles, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Garland v. Skribner et al Doc. 9 Case 1:06-cv-00270-OWW-WMW Document 9 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 1 of 2 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND, Plaintiff, 8 9 CV F 06 0270 OWW WMW P vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 10 11 12 A. K. SCRIBNER, et al., Defendants. 13 14 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. This action was filed in 16 Sacramento on February 27, 2006, and transferred to this court on March 3, 2006. On February 17 22, 2006, plaintiff filed in this court civil action no. CV F 06 00198 OWW LJO P, Shaun 18 Darnell Garland v. A. K. Scribner, et al.,. A review of the action filed on February 22, 2006, 19 reveals that the complaint is duplicative of the complaint in this action. 20 Plaintiff is advised that if he desires to proceed with two separate actions, he will 21 be obligated to pay the $250 filing fee for each case, incurring a total liability of $500. Orders 22 will be entered directing the California Department of Corrections to collect and forward to the 23 court the filing fee from plaintiff’s inmate trust account. 24 The court will recommend that this action (no. CV F 06 270 OWW WMW P) be 25 dismissed as duplicative. Should this action be dismissed as duplicative, plaintff will not incur 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-00270-OWW-WMW Document 9 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 2 of 2 1 the $250 filing fee for this case. If plaintiff fails to file objections, this action will be dismissed 2 as duplicative, without any financial obligation. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 3 RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 5 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within 6 thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 7 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 8 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is are advised that 9 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 10 Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: March 16, 2006 mmkd34 /s/ William M. Wunderlich UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 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.
