Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05421/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05421-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Murphy
Defendant
Cynthia Shavers
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA SHAVERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OAKLAND POLICE OFFICER 

MICHAEL MURPHY,

Defendant. /

No. C16-5421 CRB

ORDER OF SUA SPONTE

REFERRAL AS TO WHETHER

CASES ARE RELATED

Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 3-12(c) provides: “Whenever a Judge

believes that a case pending before that Judge is related to another case, the Judge may refer

the case to the Judge assigned to the earliest-filed case with a request that the Judge assigned

to the earliest-filed case consider whether the cases are related.” 

In the course of reviewing Plaintiff Cynthia Shavers’ Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (“IFP Application”) and Complaint, it came to the Court’s attention that this action

might be related to an earlier-filed case, Shavers v. Seven Unknown Named Officers of the

United States Marshals’ Office, No. 16-cv-957 DMR. Both cases allege that Plaintiff’s

Fourth Amendment rights were violated in connection with having been taken into custody

on March 24, 2015, and having her bail set at $80,000. Compare Compl. (dkt. 1) and Compl.

(dkt. 1) in Case No. 16-cv-957 DMR. 

Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the earlier case, see Notice of Voluntary Dismissal 

Case 4:16-cv-05421-DMR Document 4 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

(dkt. 23) in Case No. 16-cv-957 DMR, and, on the same day, filed this case, see Compl. 

Although Plaintiff did indicate on her IFP Application that the Complaint raised claims that

have been presented in other lawsuits, see IFP Application at 4, Plaintiff failed to file an

Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related, as required under the

local rules. See Civil L.R. 3-12; see also Civil Local Rule 3-3(c) (“If any civil action or

claim of a civil action is dismissed and is subsequently refiled, the refiling party must file a

Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12.).

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 3-12(c), the Court REFERS this action to the

Honorable Judge Donna M. Ryu for a determination of whether this action is related to

Shavers v. Seven Unknown Named Officers of the United States Marshals’ Office, No. 16-

cv-957 DMR.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:16-cv-05421-DMR Document 4 Filed 10/04/16 Page 2 of 2