Opinion
2:22-CV-0634 DMC P 2:23-CV-0055 CKD P 2:23-CV-0056 KJN P
04-20-2023
RAGHVENDRA SINGH, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al, Defendants. RAGHVENDRA SINGH, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. RAGHVENDRA SINGH, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DENNIS M. COTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that these cases are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). The actions involve the same property, transaction or event and similar questions of fact and the same question of law. Accordingly, assignment of the matters to the same judge is likely to effect a substantial saving of judicial effort and is also likely to be convenient for the parties.
The parties should be aware that relating the cases under Local Rule 123 merely has the result that the actions are assigned to the same judge; no consolidation of the actions is effected. Under the regular practice of this court, related cases are generally assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first filed action was assigned.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the actions denominated as 2:23-cv-0055 and 2:23-cv-0056 are reassigned to Magistrate Judge Cota for all further proceedings, and any dates currently set in the reassigned cases only are hereby VACATED. Henceforth, the caption on documents filed in the reassigned cases shall be shown as No. 2:23-cv-0055 DMC P and No. 2:23-cv-0056 DMC P.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for this reassignment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.