(PC) Hickman v. Chisholm et al, No. 2:2019cv01725 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/17/19 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed as duplicative of Hickman v. Chisholm, No. 2:19-cv-1254 TLN AC P, and of Hickman v. Chisholm, No. 2:19-cv-1828 KJM AC P. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objection due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Coll, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN DUANE HICKMAN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:19-cv-1725 KJM DB P v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATT CHISHOLM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 17 18 U.S.C. § 1983. A review of this court’s docket reveals that the claims in the instant complaint are 19 identical to those in the earlier filed Hickman v. Chisholm, No. 2:19-cv-1254 TLN AC P 20 (“Hickman I”), which was recently dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 21 granted. The claims in the instant complaint are also identical to those in the subsequently filed 22 Hickman v. Chisholm, No. 2:19-cv-1828 KJM AC P (“Hickman III”), which was also recently 23 dismissed as duplicative of Hickman I. It will therefore be recommended that the instant action 24 be dismissed as duplicative of both Hickman I and Hickman III. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as 25 26 duplicative of Hickman v. Chisholm, No. 2:19-cv-1254 TLN AC P, and of Hickman v. 27 Chisholm, No. 2:19-cv-1828 KJM AC P. 28 //// 1 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 3 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 5 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 6 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 7 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 Dated: October 17, 2019 9 10 11 12 13 14 DLB:13 DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS/hick1725.scrn.dup.f&r 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.