Khalafala v. Miller et al

Filing 58

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ORDERED denying 41 Motion to Consolidate Cases. FURTHER ORDERED denying 50 Motion to Consolidate FURTHER ORDERED denying Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 39) in CV-10-986. FURTHER ORDERED denying Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 39) in CV-10-1259. FURTHER ORDERED denying Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 18) in CV-10-2552. FURTHER ORDERED denying the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 27) in CV-10-2553. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 5/11/11. (MAP)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Khalafala Khalafala,

10

Plaintiff,

11

vs.

12
Travis Miller, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
AND RELATED CASES
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-10-984-PHX-ROS
No. CV-10-986-PHX-ROS
No. CV-10-1259-PHX-ROS
No. CV-10-2552-PHX-ROS
No. CV-10-2553-PHX-ROS
ORDER

16
17

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) regarding a

18

Motion to Consolidate in CV-10-984. (Doc. 48). For the following reasons, the R&R will

19

be adopted in full.

20

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff has approximately ten civil rights suits pending against a variety of

22

defendants. Plaintiff’s suits stem from his detention in the Florence Detention Center and

23

the Pinal County Jail. The defendants in the various suits include numerous Pinal County

24

officials as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. The Pinal County

25

officials filed a motion to consolidate, asking the Court to consolidate CV-10-986 and CV-

26

10-1259 with CV-10-984. (Doc. 41). Magistrate Judge Irwin filed a R&R recommending

27

the motion to consolidate be denied. The Pinal County officials filed objections to the R&R.

28

(Doc. 49). The Pinal County officials later filed a second motion to consolidate asking the

1

Court to consolidate CV-10-2552 and CV-10-2553 with CV-10-984.

2

ANALYSIS

3

I. Standard of Review

4

A district court “must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report

5

. . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

6

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A court need

7

review only those portions objected to by a party, meaning a court can adopt without further

8

review all unobjected to portions. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

9

(9th Cir.2003).

10

II. Consolidation is Not Appropriate

11

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court to consolidate “actions involving

12

a common question of law or fact.” This rule grants courts the Court “broad discretion” to

13

determine whether consolidation is appropriate. Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court

14

for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). “In determining

15

whether or not to consolidate cases, the Court should weigh the interest of judicial

16

convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice.” Zhu v. UCBH

17

Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quotation omitted). See also

18

Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 496 (1933) (consolidation is appropriate “as

19

a matter of convenience and economy in administration”). Here, the relevant factors weigh

20

against consolidation.

21

Plaintiff’s suits may involve some common questions of law and fact in that they all

22

stem from his treatment while detained in the Florence Detention Center and the Pinal

23

County Jail. But the suits involve different events, often different defendants, and often

24

different types of claims. Judicial convenience would not be served by consolidating these

25

suits. As Magistrate Judge Irwin pointed out, consolidating Plaintiff’s suits would likely

26

result in “a completely unwieldy case.” (Doc. 48 at 7). Moreover, consolidating the suits

27

“would likely cause greater delay and expense than it would avoid.” (Doc. 48 at 7-8). The

28
-2-

1

R&R will be adopted in full.1

2

After the R&R on the first motion to consolidate was filed, Defendants filed a second

3

motion to consolidate. The same analysis applies to that request as to the first request.

4

Consolidation would be a greater burden on the Court and significantly increase the

5

likelihood of delay and confusion.

6

Accordingly,

7

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 48) in CV-10-984 is

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

ADOPTED. The Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 41) in CV-10-984 is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 50) in CV-10-984
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 39) in CV-10-986
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 39) in CV-10-1259
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 18) in CV-10-2552
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 27) in CV-10-2553
is DENIED.
Dated this 11th day of May, 2011.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The R&R also addressed the Pinal Officials’ request to sever certain claims. Having
reviewed the issue de novo, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Irwin that “[s]evering
actions poses special problems in pleadings, particularly if amendments are sought.” (Doc.
48 at 8). Severance is not appropriate.
-3-