(PC) Hickman v. Chisholm

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KEVIN DUANE HICKMAN, No. 2:19-cv-1725 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATT CHISHOLM, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. A review of this court’s docket reveals that the claims in the instant complaint are identical to those in the earlier filed Hickman v. Chisholm, No. 2:19-cv-1254 TLN AC P (“Hickman I”), which was recently dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The claims in the instant complaint are also identical to those in the subsequently filed Hickman v. Chisholm, No. 2:19-cv-1828 KJM AC P (“Hickman III”), which was also recently dismissed as duplicative of Hickman I. It will therefore be recommended that the instant action be dismissed as duplicative of both Hickman I and Hickman III.

25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED 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. //// 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 | (9th Cir. 1991).

8 | Dated: October 17, 2019 ll ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 DB ORDERS! ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□