Koklich v. Yates et al
Filing
30
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 25 and Motion for Amendment to Order Dismissing Action 27 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/7/11. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
BRUCE KOKLICH,
10
11
12
13
14
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01507-LJO-BAM PC
Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR
AMENDMENT TO ORDER DISMISSING
ACTION
(ECF Nos. 25-28)
Defendants.
/
15
16
Plaintiff Bruce Koklich (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
17
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action in Fresno County Superior Court on
18
August 25, 2010. On August 18, 2011, Defendant P. Mendoza removed the action to federal court.
19
Koklich v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1:11-cv-01403-DLB PC
20
(E.D.Cal. Aug. 18, 2011). On August 25, 2011, Defendants Babcok, Walker, and Ward joined in
21
the removal. Defendant McCoy joined on September 7, 2011.
22
On September 6, 2011, Defendant Kelso, a defendant named in the above referenced state
23
case, filed a notice of removal and this action was opened. (ECF No. 1.) On September 7, 2011,
24
Defendant filed a notice of related case stating that he was unaware of the removal of this action by
25
the other defendant and the assignment of this action to one judge will effect substantial savings of
26
judicial effort. On October 17, 2011, an order issued dismissing this action as duplicative and
27
advising Defendant Kelso to file a notice of joinder in Koklich v. California Department of
28
Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1:11-cv-01403-DLB PC (E.D.Cal. Aug. 18, 2011). Defendant Kelso
1
1
had filed a notice of joinder on October 18, 2011. On October 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for
2
reconsideration of the order dismissing the action and a motion for amendment to the order
3
dismissing this action.
4
The court did not exceed its discretion by ordering that Plaintiff’s cases proceed as a single
5
action. The defendants were named in the same state action which was inadvertently removed by
6
two of the defendants. Plaintiff’s action against Defendant Kelso is proceeding in 1:11-cv-01403-
7
DLB-PC.
8
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and
9
motion for amendment to the order dismissing this action, filed November 4, 2011, are DENIED.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
b9ed48
November 7, 2011
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?