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-1236 DC CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RUBEN GUERRERO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to

1983. On April 30, 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 91. All of the 27 defendants in this action are also defendants in 2:24-cv-1227 DC CKD P. Also, all of the events 28 described in the operative complaint appear in the second amended complaint (ECF No. 29) in 1 |} 2:24-cv-1227 DC CKD P. 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. 6 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. Plaintiffs complaint be dismissed; and 8 2. This case be closed. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 14 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 15 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 16 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 17 | Dated: October 31, 2025 / ae □□ / a Ly a

19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 | 4 73 eke1236.dup 24 25 26 27 28