Long et al v. City of Pittsburg et al

Filing 20

PLEASE IGNORE - DUPLICATE ENTRY Order of Referral to Determine Whether Cases are Related re C18-3694 LB and C17-2730 KAW. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 09/24/2018. The deputy clerk hereby certifies that on 09/24/2018, a copy of this order was served by sending it via first-class mail to the address of each non-CM/ECF user listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing.(tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2018) Modified on 9/24/2018 (tmiS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

TIMOTHY V. LONG and TRAJHAN A.
LONG,

12

Plaintiffs,
13
v.

Case No. 18-cv-03694-LB
REFERRAL TO DETERMINE
WHETHER CASES ARE RELATED

14
CITY OF PITTSBURG, MICHAEL
CRAIGHTON, and JONATHAN ELMORE,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

On June 20, 2018, plaintiff Timothy V. Long filed a complaint, an application to proceed in

19

forma pauperis (“IFP”), and, simultaneously, a motion to reopen under Federal Rule of Civil

20

Procedure 60 in a case titled Bengard v. City of Pittsburg, No. 4:17-cv-02730-KAW.1 (Mr. Long

21

captioned the motion with the case number from the Bengard case but crossed it out and initialed

22

it; the clerk’s office thus filed the motion in this action.) In the motion, which Mr. Long purports

23

to bring on his son Trajhan’s behalf, Mr. Long challenges the settlement (and minor’s

24

compromise) in the Bengard case on the ground that he — and not the guardian ad litem there

25
26
27

Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 1; Application – ECF No. 2; Motion – ECF No. 4. Citations refer to material
in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the
top of documents.
1

28
ORDER – No. 18-cv-03694-LB

1

(Latricia Bengard) — is Trajhan’s legal guardian.2 In his complaint in this case, Mr. Long does not

2

specify facts but liberally construed, he asks for “fair compensation” for the events at issue in the

3

Bengard case.3
The court previously ordered Mr. Long to file an amended IFP application or pay the $400

4
5

filing fee because — although he said he was unemployed — he listed monthly gross income of

6

$8,000 from food stamps and welfare.4 Mr. Long did not respond to the court’s orders.5
The court has now read Mr. Long’s filings closely and refers the case to United States

7
8

Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore to consider whether the case is related to case number No.

9

4:17-cv-02730-KAW.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Dated: September 24, 2018
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

2

Motion – ECF No. 4 at 2–3.

25

3

Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 2.

Application – ECF No. 2 at 2; Orders – ECF Nos. 5, 10, and 16. In the application to proceed IFP,
Mr. Long also listed (apparently) prior employment at Rent-a-Center with monthly gross income of
$1,200. Application – ECF No. 2 at 2.
4

26
27

5

See Docket.

28
ORDER – No. 18-cv-03694-LB

2