Williams v. Bell et al

Filing 89

ORDER Regarding 68 Notice of Related Cases, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/30/19. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

C. BELL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER REGARDING NOTICE OF
RELATED CASES
[ECF No. 68]

U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding against Defendants C. Bell, S. Harris, R. Fischer, and Douglas for

19
20

Case No. 1:16-cv-01584-LJO-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff John Wesley Williams is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On December 13, 2018, a notice of related cases was filed. (ECF No. 68.) Defendants

21
22

submits that Williams v. Riley, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-03002-JAM-DMC, is related to the instant

23

action because both actions involve Plaintiff’s treatment plan provided by the Department of State

24

Hospitals (DSH) in 2016. (Id.)

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

Local Rule 123, provides, in pertinent part:

2

An action is related to another … when

3

(1) both actions involve the same parties and are based on the same or a similar claim;

4

(2) both actions involve the same property, transaction, or event;

5
6

(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;

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

(4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial duplication of labor if the actions were
heard by different Judges or Magistrate Judges.
Local Rule 123(a).
Although both cases involve the mental health treatment plan provided to Plaintiff, the cases
involve different defendants, different time frames, and different evidence relating to Plaintiff’s mental
health status and treatment, such that it cannot be said the same result should follow in both actions.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the instant case should not be related to Williams v. Riley, et al., No.
2:16-cv-03002-JAM-DMC.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

May 30, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2