(PC) King v. Beregovskaya et al, No. 1:2009cv01215 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissing Action As Duplicative 1 , Twenty Day Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 1/5/2011. F&R's referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 1/28/2011. (Fahrney, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) King v. Beregovskaya et al Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ANTHONY L. KING, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01215-AWI-GBC PC Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE v. 12 OLGA BEREGOVSKAYA, et al., 13 TWENTY DAY DEADLINE Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Anthony L. King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 16 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants removed this action, which was filed in Kings 17 County Superior Court, on July 10, 2009. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff’s request for remand was denied March 18 22, 2010. (Doc. 8.) On December 6, 2010, Defendants filed a notice of related case, 1:09-cv-00016- 19 DLB. (Doc. 12.) 20 Upon review of the cases, the Court has concluded that the complaint removed by Defendants 21 to this court on July 10, 2009, is substantively identical to the action that is proceeding in the case, 22 King v. M. Biggs, et al., 1:09-cv-00-16-DLB. In light of the duplicative nature of the instant action 23 to the action filed on January 5, 2009, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS the instant action be 24 DISMISSED as duplicative. 25 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20) 27 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 28 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 2 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 3 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: cm411 January 5, 2011 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
