(PC) Wooten v. Sokohou, No. 2:2010cv02382 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/18/10 ORDERING that 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS are VACATED; RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of Case No. CIV S-10-2138 DAD; 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint filed by Mario Ngwazi Wooten referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Wooten v. Sokohou Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARIO NGWAZI WOOTEN, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-2382 MCE DAD P vs. MIKE GREGORY SOKOHOU, ORDER AND Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On October 27, 2010, the 17 undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending dismissal of this action due to 18 plaintiff’s failure to file a properly completed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. On 19 November 8, 2010, plaintiff filed objections to those findings and recommendations, claiming 20 that the court had granted him an extension of time to file his IFP application. 21 Plaintiff has two actions pending in this court, the instant case and Case No. CIV 22 S-10-2138 DAD P. In the latter case, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file his 23 IFP application, which the court granted. However, plaintiff failed to file a similar request in this 24 case. Typically, in the interest of justice, the court would vacate the findings and 25 recommendations in this case and grant plaintiff additional time to file his IFP application. 26 However, upon further review of this case and Case No. CIV S-10-2138 DAD P, the court finds 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 that plaintiff’s complaints contain virtually identical allegations against the same defendant.1 2 The court will vacate its October 27, 2010 findings and recommendations. However, the court 3 will also recommend that the complaint in this case be dismissed because it is duplicative. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court’s October 27, 2010 5 findings and recommendations are vacated; 6 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 7 prejudice as duplicative of Case No. CIV S-10-2138 DAD P. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 9 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 10 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 11 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 12 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 13 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 14 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 DATED: November 18, 2010. 16 17 18 DAD:9 woot2382.23 19 20 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). 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.
