Cleveland v. Grounds

Filing 8

ORDER re 6 Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas on July 10, 2013. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/10/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (njvlc2, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

IVAN VERNORD CLEVELAND,

Case No. 12-cv-05222-SBA (NJV)

Plaintiff,
9
v.

ORDER FINDING CASES ARE NOT
RELATED

10
11

RANDY GROUNDS,

Re: Dkt. No. 6

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13
14

Plaintiff Ivan Cleveland filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus in pro se. Doc. No. 1.

15

Because the petition attached a document that referenced the allegations of sexual harassment that

16

are at issue in Cleveland v. Curry, No. C 07-2809 NJV (“2809”), the district court issued an Order

17

of Referral directing the undersigned to determine whether the two cases are related and whether

18

this case (“5222”) should be reassigned to the undersigned. Doc. No. 6. “An action is related to

19

another when: (1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or

20

event; and (2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and

21

expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges.” N.D. Civ. L.R.

22

3-12(a).

23

Cleveland belatedly filed a response to the district court’s order in 5222, in which he

24

argues that the two cases are not related. Doc. No. 7. He states that 5222 “deals strictly with

25

violations [due] to the overcrowding situations in our state prisons.” Id. at 1; see also id. at 2

26

(5222 “is a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging violations due to the overcrowding

27

situation only”). He referenced the allegations of sexual harassment only to illustrate one of the

28

problems created by overcrowding. Id.

1

The undersigned also ordered the parties in 2809 to address whether the cases should be

2

related. Doc. No. 135. Counsel for Defendants agrees that “Cleveland’s due-process rights and

3

medical treatment [claims] . . . have no connection to this case.” Doc. No. 136 at 1. Counsel for

4

Plaintiffs argues that the same sexual assault alleged in 2809 also forms the premise of the claim

5

in 5222, and thus that the two cases are related. Doc. No. 137.

6

Although Cleveland’s sexual harassment claims are relevant to both 2809 and 5222, the

7

undersigned finds that the cases are not related. First, the actions do not concern substantially the

8

same parties, property, transaction or event. Cleveland is the only plaintiff in 5222, and only one

9

of five plaintiffs in 2809; the defendants are different in the two cases. While the sexual
harassment allegations are the central issue in 2809, they merely illustrate Plaintiff’s complaints

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

about overcrowding in 5222. Second, it does not appear likely that there will be an unduly

12

burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted

13

before different judges at this point. On the contrary, it appears likely that relating the two cases

14

would create an undue burden in this instance. 2809 was filed more than six years ago, and trial is

15

scheduled to begin in November 2013. Discovery in that case is closed. Defendants in 5222 have

16

not yet been served. Relating the two cases now would add two new claims to 2809, would

17

require the reopening of discovery, and undoubtedly would require continuing the trial date. The

18

undersigned notes that, in August 2012, the district court denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend the

19

complaint in 2809 because allowing an amendment at such a late stage in the litigation would

20

“significantly prejudice” Defendants. Doc. No. 92. There also seems to be little risk that having

21

two judges decide the cases separately will lead to conflicting results. To the extent a judgment in

22

2809 is significant to Plaintiff’s claims in 5222, it will be available to the parties in 5222 well in

23

advance of the filing of any dispositive motions in that case.

24

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned concludes that the two cases are not related.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: July 10, 2013
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge
2