Luckey v. Jackson et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, GRANTING Motion for Leave to Amend and Consolidate and Motion to Consolidate; CONSOLIDATING cases, 23-cv-15, 23-cv-167, & 23-cv-236, for purposes of pretrial and trial; DESIGNATING 23-cv-15 a lead case with all future fi lings to be done in the lead case; DIRECTING parties to use the consolidated header that is used in this order; and ORDERING Plaintiff to separately file by 12/6/2024, her amended complaint. Signed by District Judge Terry F. Moorer on 11/22/2024. (mab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TALIYAH CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
HEATH JACKSON, et al.,
Defendants.

TALIYAH CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
KRISTY GODWIN, et al.,
Defendants.

TALIYAH CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
HEATH JACKSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-15-TFM-N

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-167-TFM-N

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-236-TFM-N

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Amend and Consolidate and related
Motion to Consolidate that were filed in each of the following three actions that are before the
Court:
(1) Carter v. Jackson, Docs. 31, 35, Civ. Act. No. 1:23-cv-15-TFM-N (S.D. Ala. Sept. 9,
Page 1 of 7

2024) (“Case 1”);
(2) Carter v. Godwin, Docs. 36, 40, Civ. Act. No. 1:23-cv-167-TFM-N (S.D. Ala. Sept. 9,
2024) (“Case 2”); and
(3) Carter v. Jackson, Docs. 31, 35, Civ. Act. No. 1:23-cv-236-TFM-N (S.D. Ala. Sept. 9,
2024) (“Case 3”).
Having considered the issue of consolidation, briefing in support, responses in opposition by some
defendants, the lack of opposition by other defendants, the arguments of counsel that were
presented at the omnibus in-person motion hearing,1 and relevant law, the motions for leave to
amend and consolidate (Case 1, Doc. 31; Case 2, Doc. 36; Case 3, Doc. 31) and the related motions
to consolidate (Case 1, Doc. 35; Case 2, Doc. 40; Case 3, Doc. 35) are both GRANTED.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed Case 1 on January 11, 2023, in which she brings claims against Defendants
Heath Jackson (“Jackson”) and Richard Hetrick (“Hetrick”) for violations of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments. Case 1, Doc. 1. Plaintiff filed Case 2 on May 8, 2023, in which she
brings claims against Defendants Southern Health Partners (“SHP”), Kristy Godwin (“Godwin”),
and Elizabeth Lowe (“Lowe”) (collectively, “the Medical Defendants”) for violations of the Eighth
Amendment and “refusing [ ] medical treatment.” Case 2, Doc. 1. Plaintiff filed Case 3 on June
23, 2023, in which she brings claims against Defendants Jackson, Hetrick, Melissa Floyd
(“Floyd”), James Ward (“Ward”) (collectively, “the Corrections Defendants”), and the Escambia
County Detention Center (“ECDC”) of cruel and unusual punishment, excessive force, and
“inhumane and uninhabitable living conditions.” Case 3, Doc. 1. The assigned Magistrate Judge

1 Because the Defendants in Case 2 indicated they did not take a position on consolidation, they

requested to attend telephonically, which the Court approved. See Case 2, Docs. 44, 45.
Page 2 of 7

recommended Defendant ECDC be dismissed without prejudice from Case 3 since it was not a
proper defendant in an action that is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which was adopted by
the undersigned. Case 3, Docs. 12, 13.
In the motions for leave to amend and consolidate, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her
complaint to essentially merge the three cases into one single case. Plaintiff’s proposed amended
complaint combines the narratives from her three separate complaints and details her treatment
and living conditions during her pretrial detention at the ECDC. See Case 1, Doc. 31-1; Case 2,
Doc. 36-1; Case 3, Doc. 31-1.
The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a formal motion to consolidate and entered an omnibus
briefing schedule for the issue of consolidation. See Case 1, Doc. 32; Case 2, Doc. 37; Case 3,
Doc. 32.
Plaintiff then filed a motion to consolidate in each of her pending cases. See Case 1, Doc.
35; Case 2, Doc. 40; Case 3, Doc. 35. In Case 1, the parties filed their respective briefing about
consolidation. See Case 1, Docs. 35, 36, 37. Defendants Jackson and Hetrick oppose the request
to consolidate in the cases in which they are named defendants. See Case 1, Doc. 36; Case 3, Doc.
36. In Case 2, while Plaintiff filed the motion to consolidate (Doc. 40), no response was filed by
any defendant, which the Court interpreted to mean the motion to consolidate is unopposed by the
Medical Defendants. This was specifically confirmed when the Medical Defendants filed a request
for excusal from the upcoming hearing and indicated they would not take a formal position on the
motion. See Case 2, Doc. 44 at 2. In Case 3, the parties filed their respective briefing about
consolidation. See Case 3, Docs. 35, 36, 37. The Corrections Defendants oppose the request to
consolidate. See Case 3, Doc. 36.
The Court set an omnibus in-person hearing on the issue of consolidation that was held on

Page 3 of 7

November 15, 2024. See Doc. 39. Plaintiff’s counsel and counsel for the Corrections Defendants
attended the hearing in person. Counsel for the Medical Defendants attended the hearing via
telephone but did not participate in oral argument as per their prior statement of taking no formal
position in support or opposition of Plaintiff’s motion.
The motions for leave to amend and consolidate and motions to consolidate are ripe for
review.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1)
join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3)
issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). Rule 42(a) “is
a codification of a trial court’s inherent managerial power ‘to control the disposition of the causes
on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” Hendrix
v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing In re Air Crash
Disaster at Fla. Everglades, 549 F.2d 1006, 1012 (5th Cir. 1977)). However, as noted by the plain
language in the use of the word “may,” the Court’s decision under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) is purely
discretionary. See also Eghnayem v. Boston Sci. Corp., 873 F.3d 1304, 1313 (11th Cir. 2017)
(quoting Hendrix, 776 F.2d at 1495) (emphasizing decision is “purely discretionary.”).

In

exercising that discretion, the Court must take into account the following factors: (1) whether the
specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion are overborne by the risk of inconsistent
adjudications of common factual and legal issues; (2) the burden on parties, witnesses and
available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits; (3) the length of time required to conclude
multiple suits as against a single one; and (4) the relative expense to all concerned of the singletrial, multiple-trial alternatives. Id. Finally, the Court may decide to consolidate for pretrial, trial,

Page 4 of 7

or both.
III.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues her cases present common questions of law and fact. See Case 1, Doc. 32;
Case 2, Doc. 37; Case 3, Doc. 32. Plaintiff argues her treatment and living conditions that were
provided to her while in the ECDC, about which she complains in each of the actions at issue,
were motivated by her membership in a protected class. See Case 1, Doc. 32; Case 2, Doc. 37;
Case 3, Doc. 32. Plaintiff argues, while Case 2 involves the medical care provider and its
employees at the ECDC, Defendants Jackson and Hetrick, who are named as defendants in Cases
1 and 2, were responsible for the policies and management of the ECDC. Id.
In response, the Corrections Defendants, while admitting actions by Defendants Jackson
and Hetrick are described in each of the cases at issue, argue the facts that are alleged in each of
the cases describe discrete and separate incidents and the allegations of their alleged involvement
in some of the cases is tenuous. Case 1, Doc. 36; Case 3, Doc. 36. As to Case 2, in which neither
Defendants Jackson nor Hetrick are a named party, the Corrections Defendants argue Defendants
Jackson and Hetrick had “no role in the administration of medical treatment or medication at the
ECDC,” and the issue with Plaintiff’s medications was the result of a pharmacy clerical error.
Case 1, Doc. 36 at 5-6; Case 3, Doc. 36 at 5-6. The Corrections Defendants’ argument is supported
by the special report that was filed in Case 2 as well as affidavits that were attached to the responses
to the instant motions. Id. The Corrections Defendants argue, to consolidate these three matters
would confuse a jury, would not benefit the parties, and would likely prejudice the defendants.
Case 1, Doc. 36 at 8-13; Case 3, Doc. 36 at 8-13.
The Court, first, notes the Correction Defendants’ argument and evidence as to Defendants
Jackson and Hetrick’s involvement in Case 2 would be more appropriately raised in a dispositive

Page 5 of 7

motion, and the Court declines to address such when the matter is before the Court to address
whether to consolidate actions.
Next, the Court finds Plaintiff’s actions allege a continuing narrative of her treatment and
living conditions that she experienced during her pretrial detention at the ECDC and involve
similar parties as well as common questions of law and fact. As the basis of Plaintiff’s alleged
treatment while at the ECDC, she alleges it was because she was a member of a protected class as
a transgender woman. Because of the similarities between these actions, if they were consolidated,
the risk of prejudice and possible confusion to the parties would be minimal, the burden on the
parties and witnesses in each matter would be minimal, judicial resources would be more
efficiently spent, the length of time to conclude the matters as one suit would be less than if these
matters continued as separate suits, and the expenses to the parties would be reduced. If these
matters were not consolidated, the risk of inconsistent adjudication of common factual and legal
issues would be great.
Put simply, the Court finds that the factors for consolidation all favor Plaintiff. Most of
the Corrections Defendants’ arguments are issues that can be raised by dispositive motion or are
simply a cost of litigation (regardless of consolidation). Accordingly, the Court finds these matters
should be consolidated for the purposes of pretrial matters and trial.2
IV.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend and consolidate (Case 1,
Doc. 31; Case 2, Doc. 36; Case 3, Doc. 31) are GRANTED, and the related motions to consolidate
(Case 1, Doc. 35; Case 2, Doc. 40; Case 3, Doc. 35) are GRANTED, and the three actions

2 To the extent appropriate, defendants may raise any arguments as to the severance of these

matters for purposes of trial after the Court rules on any dispositive motions.
Page 6 of 7

identified in this order are CONSOLIDATED for purposes of pretrial matters and trial.
The cases are consolidated with the first filed case (1:23-cv-15-TFM-N) being designated
the lead case with all future filings to be done in the lead case. Additionally, the parties are also
DIRECTED to use the consolidated header that is used in this order.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to separately file by December 6, 2024, her amended complaint
(Doc. 31-1) which shall become the operative complaint.
DONE and ORDERED this the 22nd day of November 2024.
/s/ Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 7 of 7