(PC) Hart v. California Medical Facility, No. 2:2005cv01543 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2005)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of previously filed cases that are still pending, this action is referred to Chief Judge David F. Levi, signed by Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/15/05. (Kirkpatrick, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Hart v. California Medical Facility Doc. 4 Case 2:05-cv-01543-DFL-DAD Document 4 Filed 08/15/2005 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CLETE REO HART, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1543 DFL DAD P vs. CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY MAIL ROOM, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action seeking 17 relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not paid the $250.00 filing fee or filed an 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis. 19 In his complaint dated July 30, 2005, and filed August 2, 2005, plaintiff sues the 20 California Medical Facility mail room, the mail room sergeant, all mail room staff, and “all staff 21 and clerks who represent the U.S. mail and service throughout the institution.” (Compl. at 1-2.) 22 Plaintiff alleges ongoing mail theft, mail fraud, and mail tampering during the three years he has 23 been confined at California Medical Facility. He alleges that mail, both incoming and outgoing, 24 is stolen constantly, documents sent to the courts do not reach their destination, he does not 25 receive magazines he has paid for, mail and stamps from his family do not arrive, mail from 26 relatives reaches him with return addresses spelled incorrectly, letters and complaint forms sent 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-01543-DFL-DAD Document 4 Filed 08/15/2005 Page 2 of 3 1 to the federal government are never answered, and, in response to inquiries concerning lack of 2 response, he is sent copies of letters he never received. Plaintiff concludes that “my entire mail 3 service is fraudulent.” He requests an investigation of his mail service. 4 The court’s own records reveal that plaintiff filed eight cases in this court prior to 5 the filing of this action. After this action was filed on August 2, 2005, plaintiff filed another 6 action on August 9, 2005, and two more on August 10, 2005. The undersigned has examined the 7 complaints and amended complaints filed in these twelve cases1 and finds that plaintiff has 8 alleged mail theft, mail fraud, and mail tampering in several of his cases. 9 In his oldest case in this court, Hart v. California Medical Facility, case No. CIV 10 S-04-1424 MCE DAD P, filed July 20, 2004, plaintiff’s original complaint included vague and 11 conclusory claims against unnamed “Mailroom Representatives.” (Order filed in case No. CIV 12 S-04-1424 MCE DAD P on July 1, 2005, at 3.) In his amended complaint filed July 14, 2005, 13 plaintiff names “Mail-Room” as one of the numerous defendants and includes the following 14 allegations: he is missing “around 200” responses to inquiries he has mailed, his mail is 15 tampered with regularly, return addresses on his mail are spelled wrong, his magazine 16 subscriptions do not arrive regularly, he does not receive his legal mail, and he mails federal 17 complaint forms that are never received by offices in Washington, D.C. (Am. Compl. filed in 18 case No. CIV S-04-1424 MCE DAD P on July 14, 2005, at page numbered 7 and attached 19 Statement of Claim at 4.) 20 In his amended complaint in Hart v. Schwartz, case No. CIV S-05-0777 LKK 21 PAN P, plaintiff alleges mail fraud. In Hart v. ISU, case No. CIV S-05-0983 FCD GGH P, 22 plaintiff alleges that his confidential legal mail is “violated.” In Hart v. Schwartz, case No. CIV 23 S-05-1528 LKK DAD P, plaintiff alleges mail fraud and lack of response to complaints sent to 24 federal agencies. In Hart v. California Medical Facility, case No. CIV S-05-1523 LKK KJM P, 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 Case 2:05-cv-01543-DFL-DAD Document 4 Filed 08/15/2005 Page 3 of 3 1 an action opened on July 29, 2005, plaintiff submitted a complaint dated July 22, 2005, that is 2 virtually identical to the complaint filed in this action on August 2, 2005. 3 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the undersigned will 4 recommend that the complaint be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff is cautioned 5 that a litigant who abuses the judicial process by filing duplicative actions or duplicative claims 6 may be declared vexatious, and appropriate limits may be imposed. 7 8 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of previously filed cases that are still pending. 9 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the district judge 10 assigned to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days 11 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 12 with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate 13 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 14 within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the district 15 judge’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 DATED: August 15, 2005. 17 18 19 DAD:13 hart1543.23 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
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.
