Daniels et al v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/11/2010 re 7 ORDERING that the cases do not appear similar enough to effect, through relation, a substantial savings of judicial effort or other economies. This order is issued for informational purposes only, and shall have no effect on the status of either this case or the case pending before the Northern District.(Duong, D)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant. _____________________________/ The court has received a Notice of Related Cases from Plaintiff's counsel in the above-captioned matter asking that it be related to another matter pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, entitled Berndt, et a., v. CDCR. et al., U.S. District Court Case No. 03-3174 VRW. The Notice of Related Cases purports to be made under the auspices of Eastern District Local Rule 123. Rule 123, however, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ORDER YVETTE DANIELS, MARIA AGUILAR and KAREN CURRIE, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, No. 2:10-cv-00003-MCE-DAD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

applies only to cases pending in the Eastern District; here, the case for which relation is sought is pending in another district altogether, the Northern District of California. 1

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

Moreover, even if Rule 123 did apply, the Judge with the oldest case would ordinarily decide whether relation should be effect. See E.D. Local Rule 123(c). Here, because the Northern District

Action was filed in 2003 and the action pending in this District was not filed until 2010, the decision should not be made by the undersigned in any event. The result would not change even were this Court to address the merits. The present matter appears to involve harassment

through inmate possession of pornographic materials at juvenile institutions, whereas the Berndt case alleges harassment by virtue of indecent exposure by inmates at adult institutions. Despite some similarities, the cases do not appear similar enough to effect, through relation, a substantial savings of judicial effort or other economies. This order is issued for informational purposes only, and shall have no effect on the status of either this case or the case pending before the Northern District. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 11, 2010

_____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2