Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03018/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03018-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL HAYNES,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ROSARIO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-3018 KJN P

ORDER

RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT LONG, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-3274 TLN EFB P

ORDER

The parties have consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). The court has received the Notice of Related Cases concerning the abovecaptioned case filed February 24, 2014. (ECF 28.) Defendants object to plaintiff’s notice of 

related cases because no common questions of law or fact exist between this case and the cases 

identified in plaintiff’s notice. (ECF No. 30 at 2.) 

////

Case 2:12-cv-03018-KJN Document 34 Filed 03/07/14 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Local Rule 123(a) provides that:

An action is related to another action within the meaning of this 

Rule 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.

L.R. 123(a).

The court has reviewed the cases identified by plaintiff (ECF No. 28 at 3), as well as the 

cases addressed by defendants (ECF No. 30 at 2), and determined that it is inappropriate to relate 

and reassign such cases to the instant case.1 Local Rule 123. Therefore, the court declines to do 

so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2014

/hayn3018.862

 

1

 The notice of related cases was filed and docketed in the instant action, as well as Burgos v. 

Long, Case No. 2:10-cv-3274 TLN EFB P; therefore, this order is only filed in these two cases.

Case 2:12-cv-03018-KJN Document 34 Filed 03/07/14 Page 2 of 2