Hall v. Deuel Vocational Institution et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 3/20/2018 DENYING 42 Motion to Reassign Hall v. Macomber et al., 2:16-cv-2106 TLN EFB P, to Magistrate Judge Claire. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TERRELL DWAYNE HALL,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:13-cv-0746 AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION
et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff moves for reassignment to the undersigned magistrate judge of all plaintiff’s

19

cases currently pending before this court. See ECF No. 42. In addition to the instant case,

20

plaintiff has two open cases: (1) Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00324

21

AC P; and (2) Hall v. Macomber et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02106 TLN EFB P. The first of these

22

cases is already assigned to the undersigned; therefore, plaintiff’s instant motion is construed as a

23

motion to reassign Hall v. Macomber et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02106 TLN EFB P to the

24

undersigned magistrate judge. Such reassignment would require the approval of both the

25

transferring and accepting magistrate judge. See Local Rules, Eastern District of California,

26

Appendix A (Automated Case Assignment Plan), subd. (f).

27
28

Plaintiff is informed that the initial assignment of all cases in this federal district court is
random, as implemented by the Automated Case Assignment System. See id., Appendix A.

1

Random judicial assignments ensure that every litigant has the same opportunity to appear before

2

a given district judge and/or magistrate judge, and that the assessments of their cases will be

3

neutral.
Absent a showing that a litigant’s cases are related, as defined by Local Rule 123,1 there is

4
5

no basis for reassignment to the same presider. The court has compared the claims in the instant

6

case with those in Hall v. Macomber, supra, Case No. 2:16-cv-02106 TLN EFB P, and finds that

7

they do not meet the requirements for relation. The undersigned previously summarized

8

plaintiff’s claims in the instant case, alleged against twenty defendants at Deuel Vocational

9

Institution (DVI), as set forth in his proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC),2 ECF No. 36

10

at 2-3:

11

In his SAC, plaintiff contends that in December 2012, during his
physical examination when initially incarcerated, plaintiff was
administered an injection, reportedly against hepatitis, that
allegedly caused significant changes to his entire body resulting in
overt feminization. See ECF No. 22. These changes have been
distressing to plaintiff, both privately and due to the responses of
inmates and prison staff. Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to
relentless verbal harassment and name calling, the tampering of his
food, and intentional obstruction in his attempts to exhaust
administrative remedies. In the SAC, which names more than thirty
defendants, plaintiff seeks damages, “medical fees payed for the

12
13
14
15
16
17

1

Local Rule 123(a) provides in pertinent part:

18
(a) Definition of Related Cases. An action is related to another
action within the meaning of this Rule when

19

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

20
21

(2) both actions involve the same property, transaction, or event;
22
(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; or

23
24
25

(4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial duplication of
labor if the actions were heard by different Judges or Magistrate
Judges.

26
27
28

2

Plaintiff has since filed a proposed Third Amended Complaint, see ECF No. 41, which is
pending the court’s screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
2

1

massive surgery I need,” fees and costs, and a “public apology for
the defamation.” Id. at 3.

2
3

In contrast, in Hall v. Macomber, all or most of the twenty-six defendants work at California State

4

Prison Sacramento, not at DVI. The allegations in that case are more expansive than the medical

5

matters pursued in the instant case, e.g., including alleged food tampering, excessive force and

6

retaliation.

7

In short, plaintiff’s claims in Hall v. Macomber and the instant case involve different

8

parties, different claims, and different questions of fact and law. Cf. Local Rule 123(a)(1)-(3).

9

Plaintiff’s assertion that reassignment would nevertheless demonstrate to one presider the

10

“partern of retaliational compariscy” (sic), ECF No. 42 at 1, is not persuasive. Such rationale

11

seeks to undermine the independent and objective assessments otherwise achieved by random

12

assignment of unrelated cases. Moreover, there is no indication that relating such dissimilar cases

13

would reduce any “substantial duplication of labor.” Local Rule 123(a)(4). For these several

14

reasons, plaintiff’s motion must be denied. The undersigned declines to request the reassignment

15

of this case from the assigned magistrate judge.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reassign Hall v.

17

Macomber et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02106 TLN EFB P, to the undersigned magistrate judge, ECF

18

No. 42, is DENIED.

19

DATED: March 20, 2018

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3