(PC) Mundy v. Cavello et al, No. 2:2023cv00061 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/28/23 ORDERING that the Clerk randomly assign a District Judge to this action. District Judge William B. Shubb has been randomly assigned to this case; the new c ase no. is 2:23-cv-0061 WBS AC. It is RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED as duplicative of the earlier-filed Mundy v. City and County of Sacramento, No. 2:23-cv-0059 CKD. Matter REFERRED to District Judge Willaim B. Shubb. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. (Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Mundy v. Cavello et al Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STANLEY W. MUNDY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:23-cv-0061 AC P v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PATRICK COVELLO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 17 18 has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. See ECF 19 Nos. 1 (“Mundy II” complaint), 6 (in forma pauperis application). The matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. A review of the complaint reveals that it is identical to the one filed in Mundy v. City and 21 22 County of Sacramento, No. 2:23-cv-0059 CKD (“Mundy I”). Compare Mundy II, ECF No. 1, 23 with Mundy I, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions 24 involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same 25 defendants. Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) 26 overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). Therefore, it will be 27 recommended that the instant matter be dismissed. 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a District Judge to this action. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED as duplicative of the earlier-filed Mundy v. City and County of Sacramento, No. 2:23-cv-0059 CKD. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 7 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 8 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 9 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 10 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 11 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 DATED: July 28, 2023 13 14 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.
