Ingram v. City of Sacramento, et al

Filing 16

NON-RELATED CASE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 06/13/12 ORDERING that Court DECLINES to relate the cases 12 2:12-cv-0864 KJM GGH PS, 2:12-cv-927 MCE CKD PS, 2:12-cv-1089 JAM CKD PS, 2:12-cv-1233 JAM KJN PS and 2:12-cv-1284 JAM DAD PS.(Benson, A.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 CHADERICK A. INGRAM 10 11 12 Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 / CHADERICK A. INGRAM 16 17 18 Plaintiff, CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. 20 / CHADERICK A. INGRAM 22 23 24 25 26 No. CIV S-12-927 MCE CKD PS vs. 19 21 No. CIV S-12-864 KJM GGH PS Plaintiff, No. CIV S-12-1089 JAM CKD PS vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. / 1 CHADERICK A. INGRAM 2 3 4 Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 5 Defendants. 6 7 / CHADERICK A. INGRAM 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-12-1284 JAM DAD PS vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., NON-RELATED CASE ORDER Defendants. 12 13 No. CIV S-12-1233 JAM KJN PS / The court has received the Notice of Related Cases concerning the above- 14 captioned cases, filed June 6, 2012. See E.D. Local Rule 123. The court has, however, 15 determined that it is inappropriate to relate and reassign Civil No. S-12-927 MCE CKD PS, 12- 16 1089 JAM CKD, 12-1233 JAM KJN GGH PS, and 12-1284 JAM DAD GGH PS, to Civil No. S- 17 12-864 KJM GGH PS. The cases involve numerous and different defendants, albeit some of the 18 same defendants appear regularly. More importantly, most of the cases are in stages where 19 dismissal has been recommended, and a final order of adoption is awaiting signature from the 20 district judge. Therefore, the court declines to relate the cases. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 13, 2012 23 24 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE GGH:076/Ingram864.rel.wpd 25 26 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?