Alvarez v. Morris Shea Bridge Company

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SERGIO ALVAREZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-01487-KES-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 4) MORRIS SHEA BRIDGE COMPANY, 15 Defendant.

18 Plaintiff Sergio Alvarez (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action on December 6, 2024. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff asserts a claim for fraud against Defendant Morris Shea Bridge Company, alleging that he was “laid off and [he] wrote a note and sign to mail [his] check and they change the words on the note.” (Id. at 6.) He seeks $100,000.00. (Id. at 5.)

23 On February 5, 2025, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations that recommended this action be dismissed because Plaintiff previously pursued this same claim before this Court in Alvarez v. Morris Shea Bridge Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-01725-JLT- BAM,1 and, although dismissed without prejudice, his appeal of that action remained pending A court may take judicial notice of its own records. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases.”).

1 before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

2 On March 11, 2025, while the Findings and Recommendations remained pending, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal. (See Alvarez, Case No. 1:23-cv-01725-JLT-BAM, Doc. 45.) That order became effective April 1, 2025. (Id.) Accordingly, because the appeal is no longer pending, the Findings and Recommendations issued in this action are HEREBY VACATED.

7 Plaintiff is reminded that the Court is required to screen complaints of pro se litigants proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code section 1915(e)(2).

9 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). As a result, no summons will issue at this time. The Court will direct the United States Marshal to serve Plaintiff’s complaint only after the Court has screened the complaint and determined that it contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendant. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s complaint in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: May 27, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE