IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 11, 2009
THOMAS CLINTON, PLAINTIFF,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 2, 2009, plaintiff filed a new "complaint," indicating it should run concurrent with this case, and provided this case number. As the document had this case number on it, the Clerk of the Court filed the complaint in this case. However, it appears to the undersigned that this new complaint should have been opened as a new and separate action. As such, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to strike the complaint from this action, and open a new case with this document.
Plaintiff's indication that this new case should "run concurrent" with the instant case is construed as a request for an order relating the cases. The Eastern District of California Local Rule 83-123(a) allows the court to relate cases where the court finds that the two cases involve the same parties and similar claims, involve the same event, or involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law. None of those criteria are met in this instance. Plaintiff's new complaint does not involve the same parties, is not based on the same events as in this case which occurred while Plaintiff was in prison, and do not involve the same questions of fact or law. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff is requesting these cases be related, that request will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike the complaint filed March 2, 2009 (Doc. 297) from the docket in this action;
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to use that compliant to open a new civil action, and randomly assign this new case as appropriate; and
3. Plaintiff's request for a related case order is denied.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.