-DAD (PC) Wooten v. Sokohou, No. 2:2011cv00070 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/14/11 ORDERING the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this action. U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb randomly assigned to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-DAD (PC) Wooten v. Sokohou Doc. 6 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 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-11-0070 DAD P vs. MIKE GREGORY SOKOHOU, 14 Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed with 17 the court on January 7, 2011. The court’s own records reveal that on August 10, 2010, plaintiff 18 filed a complaint containing virtually identical allegations against the same defendant. (No. Civ. 19 S-10-2138 MCE DAD P).1 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will 20 recommend that the complaint be dismissed. 21 In accordance with the above: 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly 23 assign a United States District Judge to this action. 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 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned 4 to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being 5 served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the 6 court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 7 Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 8 days after service of the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 9 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 10 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 DATED: March 14, 2011. 12 13 14 DAD:9 woot0070.23 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.
