Chavez et al v. County of Santa Clara

Filing 145

Order by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman denying 144 Motion. Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record. (rmilc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2024).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

EUREKA DIVISION

4
5

BRIAN CHAVEZ, et al.,

6

Plaintiffs,

7
8
9

Case No. 15-cv-05277-RMI
ORDER DENYING MOTION

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 144
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11

Before the court is a Motion to Partake in the Pending Enforcement Hearing Before

12

Magistrate Judge Cousins in this Consent Decree (dkt 144) filed pro se by Mr. Howard Herships.

13

In the Motion, Mr. Herships references his currently pending action in this court, Herships v. State

14

of California Superior Court et al, 3:20-cv-07208-JD, and requests that, based on the discovery he

15

has received in that action, he be allowed to file documentation (over 500 pages) of evidence of

16

the County’s violations of the consent decree in this action. See generally Mot. (Dkt 144).

17

Previously, Mr. Herships filed a Motion to Intervene (dkt. 117) and a Motion for Civil Contempt

18

(dkt. 116). In the Order denying those motions (dkt. 119), the court explained to Mr. Herships that

19

his “interests are adequately represented by” class counsel in this matter and denied his request to

20

intervene in this case on a pro se basis. Nothing in this most recent filing alters that analysis and

21

decision. If Mr. Herships believes he has something of import regarding the enforcement of this

22

consent decree, he should simply provide it to class counsel.

23
24
25
26

Accordingly, the Motion to Partake in the Pending Enforcement Hearing Before
Magistrate Judge Cousins in this Consent Decree (dkt 144) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 18, 2024

27
28

ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge