1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME ELI McCOY, No. 2:22-cv-2182 KJM DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO CO. JAIL, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to

. In an order filed January 12, 2023, this court found 19 that petitioner’s claims should be raised, if at all, in a civil rights action. Based on the differences 20 between civil rights and habeas cases, this court recommended this action be dismissed without 21 prejudice to its renewal as a civil rights action. 22 Petitioner now seeks to convert this action to a civil rights action. However, it has come 23 to the court’s attention that prior to filing the present action in December 2022, petitioner filed a 24 separate habeas action in this court in which he makes the same allegations he makes here.1 That 25 case is McCoy v. Sacramento Co. Jail, et al., 2:22-cv-1170 AC P. Petitioner recently informed 26 the court in that prior case that he wishes to convert it to a civil rights action. 27 1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman,

(9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson,

(9th Cir. 1980). 1 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, this court will recommend that this 2 | action be dismissed. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 12, 2023 are vacated; and 5 2. Petitioner’s motion to convert this action to a civil rights case (ECF No. 8) is denied as 6 | moot. 7 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 8 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this 10 | case pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(). Within thirty days after being served 11 | with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 12 || The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 13 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 14 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

(9th 15 Cir. 1991). 16 | Dated: January 31, 2023 17 18 19 -BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 | DLB:9 DB prisoner inbox/habeas/R/mcco2 182.23 24 25 26 27 28