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)

Download PDF
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-

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?