(PC)Candler v. Herrera, No. 2:2017cv00789 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/3/2017 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH CANDLER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-0789 JAM KJN P v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION HERRERA, 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint, signed December 11, 17 18 2016, was removed from state court by defendant. Defendant also filed a notice of related case 19 stating that the instant complaint involves identical claims and parties as those filed by plaintiff in 20 Candler v. Herrera, No. 2:17-cv-0484 KJN (E.D. Cal.) (complaint signed February 26, 2017). 21 Defendant requests that both cases be assigned to the undersigned and, further, suggest that the 22 two actions be consolidated in 2:17-cv-0484 KJN to avoid duplication of court resources. However, review of the two complaints confirm that aside from being filed on different 23 24 court forms, plaintiff’s allegations are virtually identical.1 The undersigned has screened 25 plaintiff’s allegations in the earlier-filed action, and service of process on defendant Herrera was 26 ordered. No. 2:17-cv-0484 KJN (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff consented to the dismissal of his 27 28 1 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 1 retaliation claim against defendant Herrera. (ECF No. 8.) Due to the duplicative nature of the 2 present action, it appears appropriate that the complaint be dismissed. 3 4 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this 6 case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served 7 with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 8 The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 9 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 10 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 11 Cir. 1991). 12 Dated: May 3, 2017 13 14 /cand0789.23 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.