Jordan v. Ryan et al

Filing 36

ORDER denying Motion to Consolidate Cases (Doc. 42); denying Motion to Certify Class (Doc. 57). Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 1/17/12.(DMT)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Charles L. Ryan, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________) ) ) Thomas Alec Kidwell ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Charles L. Ryan, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) ) ) John Gary Jordan, Jr. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Charles L. Ryan, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) ) Geary Wayne Walton, No. CV-10-2206-PHX-FJM No. CV-10-2207-PHX-ROS No. CV-10-2209-PHX-PGR ORDER 27 28 On August 13, 2010, Plaintiffs Geary Wayne Walton, Thomas Kidwell, Joseph 1 Starling Greene, and John G. Jordan, Jr., who are confined in the Central Arizona 2 Correctional Facility in Florence, Arizona, jointly filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 3 U.S.C. § 1983, and requested class certification. See Walton v. Ryan, No. CV-10-1732 (D. 4 Ariz. Aug. 13, 2010). On October 15, 2010, we denied Plaintiffs’ request for class 5 certification and ordered the action severed into four separate cases (CV-10-1732-PHX-FJM 6 (doc. 7); CV-10-2206-PHX-FJM (doc. 10)). 7 We now have before us Plaintiff Walton’s second motion for class certification (doc. 8 57), and Defendants’ response (doc. 64). We also have before us Defendants’ motion for 9 consolidation of related cases (doc. 42), Plaintiff’s response (doc. 41), and Defendants’ reply 10 (doc. 48). Defendants ask us to consolidate this case with two of the original four cases: 11 Kidwell v. Ryan, No. CV-10-2207-PHX-ROS and Jordan v. Ryan, No. CV-10-2209-PHX- 12 PGR. 13 Under Rule 42(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., a court may consolidate actions involving a 14 common question of law or fact. In exercising our discretion under Rule 42(a), we will 15 weigh the saving of time and effort achieved through consolidation against any 16 inconvenience, delay, or expense that consolidation would cause. Huene v. United States, 17 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). 18 In our October 15, 2010 order, we denied class certification and ordered the action 19 severed, reasoning that each of the Plaintiffs are inmates proceeding pro se, and none of the 20 Plaintiffs is an attorney and therefore cannot represent any other Plaintiff. We explained that 21 because of security concerns related to inmate correspondence and face-to-face 22 communications, the management of a multiple pro se inmate lawsuit is difficult, inefficient, 23 and “unfair[] to Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the Court’s goals of achieving judicial economy 24 and maintaining efficient control of the Court’s docket.” Order at 4. We noted that 25 “Plaintiffs would have at best only a very limited opportunity to discuss case strategy, share 26 discovery, or even provide each other copies of the motions and notices they file with the 27 Court.” Id. Nothing new is presented in either the Defendants’ motion to consolidate or the 28 Plaintiff’s renewed motion for class certification to change this conclusion. In addition, the -2- 1 three cases now at issue have been processing individually for more than a year and are at 2 different stages of development. For example, the discovery cutoff date and dispositive 3 motion deadline have already passed in Kidwell v. Ryan, No. CV-10-2207-PHX-ROS. We 4 therefore reiterate our earlier conclusion that neither consolidation nor class certification is 5 warranted in this case. 6 IT IS ORDERED DENYING Defendants’ motion to consolidate cases (doc. 42). 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s motion for class certification 8 9 (doc. 57). DATED this 17th day of January, 2012. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -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?