Opinion
1:20-cv-01342-NONE-HBK 1:20-cv-01342-NONE-EPG
07-22-2021
WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, Plaintiff, v. SGT. PEREA, SGT. R. JOHNSON, LT. HOUSTON, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO RELATE CASES (DOC. NO. 8)
Plaintiff William J. Gradford initiated this action as a prisoner proceeding pro se by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). Pending before the court is plaintiff's “request” that the instant case and Gradford v. Velasco, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00543-NONE-EPG, be related. (Doc. No. 8). The court treats plaintiff's request as one to relate cases under Local Rule 123.
Under Local Rule 123(a), an action is related to another when:
(1) both actions involve the same parties and are based on the same or a similar claim;
(2) both actions involve the same property, transaction, or event;
(3) both actions involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law and their assignment to the same Judge or Magistrate Judge is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort, either because the same result should follow in both actions or otherwise; or
(4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial duplication of labor if the actions were heard by different Judges or Magistrate Judges.
Here, plaintiff did not file a similar notice or request in the previous action as required by Local Rule 123(b). Nor does plaintiff provide a “brief statement” to explain the “relationship” between the cases and “reasons why assignment to a single judge or magistrate judge is likely to effect a savings of judicial effort and other economies.” Id. Having independently reviewed the cases, although they name different defendants, both arise from related events that took place at Stanislaus Public Safety Center. Accordingly, the assignment of these matters to the same judge and magistrate judge is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort and is likely to be convenient for the parties.
Relating cases under Rule 123 causes the actions to be assigned to the same judge and magistrate judge-it does not consolidate the actions. Under Rule 123, related cases are generally assigned to the judge and magistrate judge whom the first-filed action was assigned. Here, the district judge is the unassigned docket (i.e., “NONE”) and the Hon. Erica P. Grosjean is the assigned magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs request to relate cases (Doc. No. 8) is granted.
2. This case is reassigned from Magistrate Judge Helena Barch-Kuchta to Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. The district judge remains “unassigned” (NONE) for both actions.
3. Going forward, the caption on the docket and all documents filed in this reassigned case shall be shown as:
1:20-cv-01342-NONE-EPG.
IT IS SO ORDERED.