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-
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?