IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 25, 2010
MURRAY STANFORD, PETITIONER,
WARDEN GONZALES, RESPONDENT.
RUDY MAMARIL, PETITIONER,
GARY SWARTHOUT, RESPONDENT.
The court has received a Notice of Related Cases filed by respondents concerning the above-captioned cases filed August 9, 2010. See Local Rule 123, E.D. Cal. (2010).
Examination of Civil No. S-10-438 FCD DAD and Civil No. S-10-1431 CMK reveals that these two cases are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Assignment of these cases to the same Magistrate Judge is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort, whereas substantial duplication of labor would result if the actions were heard by different District Judges or Magistrate Judges.
The parties should be aware that relating the cases under Local Rule 123(a) merely has the result that the related cases are assigned to the same judge; no consolidation of the actions is effected. Under the regular practice of this court, related cases are generally assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first filed action was assigned. In Case No. CIV S-10-1431 CMK, the parties have consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in the case. In Case No. CIV S-10-438 FCD DAD, the parties have not so consented.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the action denominated as CIV S-10-1431 CMK is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Dale A Drozd for all further proceedings. Henceforth, the caption on documents filed in the reassigned case shall be shown as No. CIV S-10-1431 DAD. The Magistrate Judge and District Judge assigned to case No. CIV S-10-438 FCD DAD will remain the same.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for this reassignment.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.