1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIKE MORGAN, No. 2:24-CV-2395-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. HALL, and 15 Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18

. The Court's record reflect that Plaintiff is proceeding in another action in this 19 Court based on virtually identical allegations. See Morgan v. Espinoza, et al., Eastern Dist. Cal. 20 case no. 2:23-cv-1955-DAD-DMC-P.1 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the 21 Court will recommend that it be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also 22 Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health Servs.,

, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (plaintiffs generally 23 have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time 24 in the same court and against the same defendant); overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. 25 Sturgell,

(2008); Higgins v. Medina,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 26

27 1 The Court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman,

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

(9th Cir. 28 1980). 1 |} 3, 2007) (dismissing complaint as duplicative of complaint filed in separate action). 2 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends orders and recommends as 3 || follows: 4 1. It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly 5 || assign a District Judge to this case. 6 2. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice to 7 || Plaintiff's ability to pursue his claims in Morgan v. Espinoza, et al., E.D. Cal. case no. 2:23-cv- 8 | 1955-DAD-DMC-P. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 10 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within 14 days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 12 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 13 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 14 Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 | Dated: October 17, 2024 SS GC M7 DENNIS M. COTA 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28