Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02232/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02232-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER J. ROSE,

Petitioner,

v. CIV. NO. S-01-1423 LKK DAD P

M. KNOWLES, Warden, NON-RELATED CASE ORDER 

Respondent.

 /

PETER ROSE; ASHLEY ROSE, a minor, 

by and through her Guardian Ad 

Litem, her custodial parent, Peter

Rose; BRITNEY ROSE, a minor, by

and through her Guardian Ad Litem, CIV. NO. S-05-2208 GEB PAN 

her custodial parent, Peter Rose;

and PETER ROSE JR., a minor,

by and through his Guardian 

Ad Litem, his custodial parent,

Peter Rose,

Plaintiffs,

 vs.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY; SAN JOAQUIN

COUNTY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

KEVIN MAYO; and DOES I THROUGH 25,

Defendants.

 /

Case 2:05-cv-02232-GEB -EFB Document 22 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

PETER ROSE; ASHLEY ROSE, a minor, 

by and through her Guardian Ad 

Litem, her custodial parent, Peter

Rose; BRITNEY ROSE, a minor, by

and through her Guardian Ad Litem, CIV. NO. S-05-2229 GEB DAD

her custodial parent, Peter Rose;

and PETER ROSE JR., a minor,

by and through his Guardian 

Ad Litem, his custodial parent,

Peter Rose

 vs.

CITY OF LODI CALIFORNIA; MATTHEW 

FOSTER; ERNEST A. NIES, JR.; and 

DOES I THROUGH 25,

 Defendants.

 /

PETER ROSE; ASHLEY ROSE, a minor, 

by and through her Guardian Ad 

Litem, her custodial parent, Peter

Rose; BRITNEY ROSE, a minor, by

and through her Guardian Ad Litem, CIV. No. S-05-2232 DFL KJM

her custodial parent, Peter Rose;

and PETER ROSE JR., a minor,

by and through his Guardian 

Ad Litem, his custodial parent,

Peter Rose

 vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; 

KATHLEEN CIULA, in her individual

and official capacity; and DOES

I THROUGH 25,

 Defendants.

 /

The court has received the Notice of Related Cases concerning

the above-captioned cases filed January 10, 2006. See Local Rule

83-123, E.D. Cal. (1997). The court has determined, however, that

it is inappropriate to relate or reassign the cases, and therefore

declines to do so. This order is issued for informational

purposes only, and shall have no effect on the status of the

Case 2:05-cv-02232-GEB -EFB Document 22 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 3
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

1 The court record reflects that the magistrate judge filed

findings and recommendations in case No. CIV S-01-1423 LKK DAD P,

a habeas corpus action, recommending that the petition be denied.

This court did not adopt or reject the findings and

recommendations, but, instead, issued an order dismissing the case

because the petitioner had been found factually innocent in state

court. The three civil lawsuits sought to be related to the habeas

corpus action request damages for alleged civil rights abuses in

connection with the petitioner's criminal trial; the issues raised

therein are not related to the claims raised in the petition for

writ of habeas corpus. Under these circumstances, it is not

necessary or appropriate to relate the civil damages actions to the

habeas action. See Local Rule 83-123(a), E.D. Cal. (1997).

3

cases, including any previous Related (or Non-Related) Case Order

of this court.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 7, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-02232-GEB -EFB Document 22 Filed 02/07/06 Page 3 of 3