Koklich v. Yates et al

Filing 30

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 25 and Motion for Amendment to Order Dismissing Action 27 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/7/11. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

BRUCE KOKLICH,

10
11
12
13
14

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01507-LJO-BAM PC
Plaintiff,

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR
AMENDMENT TO ORDER DISMISSING
ACTION
(ECF Nos. 25-28)

Defendants.
/

15
16

Plaintiff Bruce Koklich (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

17

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action in Fresno County Superior Court on

18

August 25, 2010. On August 18, 2011, Defendant P. Mendoza removed the action to federal court.

19

Koklich v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1:11-cv-01403-DLB PC

20

(E.D.Cal. Aug. 18, 2011). On August 25, 2011, Defendants Babcok, Walker, and Ward joined in

21

the removal. Defendant McCoy joined on September 7, 2011.

22

On September 6, 2011, Defendant Kelso, a defendant named in the above referenced state

23

case, filed a notice of removal and this action was opened. (ECF No. 1.) On September 7, 2011,

24

Defendant filed a notice of related case stating that he was unaware of the removal of this action by

25

the other defendant and the assignment of this action to one judge will effect substantial savings of

26

judicial effort. On October 17, 2011, an order issued dismissing this action as duplicative and

27

advising Defendant Kelso to file a notice of joinder in Koklich v. California Department of

28

Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1:11-cv-01403-DLB PC (E.D.Cal. Aug. 18, 2011). Defendant Kelso
1

1

had filed a notice of joinder on October 18, 2011. On October 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for

2

reconsideration of the order dismissing the action and a motion for amendment to the order

3

dismissing this action.

4

The court did not exceed its discretion by ordering that Plaintiff’s cases proceed as a single

5

action. The defendants were named in the same state action which was inadvertently removed by

6

two of the defendants. Plaintiff’s action against Defendant Kelso is proceeding in 1:11-cv-01403-

7

DLB-PC.

8

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and

9

motion for amendment to the order dismissing this action, filed November 4, 2011, are DENIED.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
b9ed48

November 7, 2011

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2