1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHIDI JOACHIM EKE, No. 2:25-cv-1091 DC CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CHRIS ORE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to

1983. On April 14, 2025, defendants removed this action from the Superior Court of Sacramento 19 County. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to

636(b)(1). 21 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 22 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 23 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 26 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s operative pleading, ECF No. 1 at 6. Both defendants in 27 this action, Sacramento County Deputy District Attorneys, are also defendants in 2:24-cv-1227 28 DC CKD P. As in that action, plaintiff complains about defendants’ participation in obtaining 1 | search and arrest warrants. Since “[p]laintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate 2 || actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same 3 || defendant,” Adams v. Cal. Dept. of Health Servs.,

, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal 4 | quotations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell,

(2008), the 5 | court will recommend that this action be dismissed. Also, as the court has found in 2:24-cv-1227 6 || DC CKD, claims implying the invalidity of a conviction are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 7 || U.S. 477, 487 (1994). It does not appear the court can find either defendant acted in violation of 8 | plaintiffs federal rights without implying the invalidity of plaintiff's convictions. 9 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 10 1. Plaintiffs complaint be dismissed; and 11 2. This case be closed. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 14 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 15 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 16 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 17 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 18 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 19 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 20 | Dated: October 31, 2025 □□ I / dle ae

22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 26 eke1091.dup 27 28