Williams v. People of the State of California et al

Filing 28

Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases re Case Nos. 04-cv-0117, 06-cv-5825, and 09-cv-3194. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on October 27, 2015. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHARLES LEE WILLIAMS,

Case No. 15-cv-03013-JCS

Plaintiff,
8

(also filed in Case Nos. 04-cv-0117-MMC,
06-cv-5825-MMC, and 09-cv-3194-MMC)

v.
9
10

ROY SCHEINGART, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ORDER OF SUA SPONTE REFERRAL
AS TO WHETHER CASES ARE
RELATED

Civil Local Rule 3-12(c) provides that “[w]henever a Judge believes that a case pending

12
13

before that Judge is related to another case, the Judge may refer the case to the Judge assigned to

14

the lowest-numbered case with a request that the Judge assigned to the lowest-numbered case

15

consider whether the cases are related.”
Charles Lee Williams filed a Petition and other documents in this action challenging the

16
17

propriety of his 2002 arrest for armed robbery, 2003 conviction in state court, and subsequent

18

incarceration. Williams has previously filed two petitions for habeas corpus and a claim under 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983 related to his arrest. Each of those cases was assigned to the Honorable Maxine

20

Chesney, United States District Judge, who dismissed Williams’s § 1983 claim because it would

21

imply the invalidity of his conviction, denied his first habeas petition on the merits, and dismissed

22

his second habeas petition for failure to obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 2244.

24

Because the present case and the previous three cases all arise from the same arrest and

25

conviction, this action is REFERRED to Judge Chesney pursuant to Rule 3-12(c) for a

26

determination of whether this action is related to any or all of the following cases: (1) Williams v.

27

City of Oakland, No. 04-cv-00117-MMC; (2) Williams v. Malfi, No. 06-cv-5825-MMC; and/or

28

(3) Williams v. Walker, No. 09-cv-3194-MMC.

Any party may file a response, opposition, or statement in support of relating the cases no

1
2

later than November 2, 2015.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated: October 27, 2015
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

The undersigned has also issued a Report and Recommendation in this case, recommending that
the case be dismissed without leave to amend. If Judge Chesney determines that the cases are not
related, this case will be reassigned to a randomly selected United States district judge for further
proceedings, including action on that recommendation.
2