Hedrick et al v. Grant

Filing 226

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/3/18 ORDERING that the action will not be reassigned as a related case because it has not been shown that assignment to the same judge is likely to effect a substantial savings in judicial effort. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DAVID HEDRICK, et al.,

8
9
10

No. 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB

Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES GRANT, et al.,

11
Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16

Estate of BERTRAM HISCOCK,
deceased, by and through
VINCENT HISCOCK, as
Administrator; SHERRICK
HISCOCK,
Plaintiffs,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

No. 2:17-cv-02706-JAM-GGH

ORDER

v.
COUNTY OF YUBA; COUNTY OF
SUTTER; SHERIFF-CORONER
STEVEN L. DURFOR, in his
individual capacities and
official capacities; TONY
HOBSON, in his individual and
official capacities; JOAN
ODOM, M.D., in her individual
capacity,
Defendants.

25
26

On December 28, 2017, counsel for plaintiffs in case

27

number 2:17-cv-02706-JAM—GGH filed a “Notice of Related Cases,”

28
1

1

in which it seeks to have its case related to case number 2:76-

2

cv-00162-GEB-EFB.

3

Plaintiffs state in pertinent part:

Plaintiffs’ claims for relief arise from the
death by suicide of Bertram Hiscock in the
Yuba County Jail on January 29, 2017, and are
based
on
violations
of
the
First
and
Fourteenth
Amendments
of
the
U.S.
Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and California state law. Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants failed to provide Mr.
Hiscock with necessary and adequate medical
and
mental
health
treatment,
were
deliberately indifferent to serious risk of
harm, and discriminated on the basis of
psychiatric disability.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Hedrick v. Grant is a class action against
Yuba County officials on behalf of inmates
incarcerated at Yuba County Jail and a
Consent Decree was entered by the Court in
that action in 1979 that, inter alia, relates
to provision of medical and mental health
treatment and suicide prevention at the Jail.

11
12
13
14

Mot.

to

Relate

1:8–18,

ECF

No.

15

The action will not be reassigned as a related case because it

16

has not been shown that assignment to the same judge is likely to

17

effect a substantial savings in judicial effort.

18

Dated:

January 3, 2018

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

224

in

2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB.