-DAD (PC) Tillman v Board of Parole Hearings, No. 2:2011cv01011 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/28/11 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
-DAD (PC) Tillman v Board of Parole Hearings Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ANTHONY B. TILLMAN, 10 11 12 Plaintiff, No. CIV S11-1011 MCE DAD P vs. BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, 13 Defendant. 14 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff initiated this action by 16 filing his complaint with this court on April 15, 2011. Therein plaintiff alleges that the 17 California Board of Parole Hearings denied him his constitutional rights by failing to provide 18 him with a fair parole hearing on an unspecified. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff also alleges that he 19 has brought two prior lawsuits against the Board for failing to provide him a fair parole hearing 20 and denying him parole but, without explanation, has failed to provide the specifics with respect 21 to those prior actions. (Id. at 2-3.) However, the court’s own records reveal that on January 26, 22 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint containing virtually identical allegations to those presented in 23 this complaint against the same defendant. (See Case No. 1:11-cv-0138 LJO-SMS PC ).1 That 24 earlier filed action was dismissed for failure to state a claim and that plaintiff’s appeal of that 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 judgment was found to be untimely and was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Due to the 2 duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend that the complaint in this 3 action be dismissed. 4 5 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned 7 to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being 8 served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the 9 court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 10 Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 11 days after service of the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 12 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 13 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 DATED: November 28, 2011. 15 16 17 18 DAD:4 till1011.23 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2