George N. Allen v. Mayberg et al

Filing 74

ORDER Reassigning and CONSOLIDATING Civil Case No. 1:10-cv-01793-MJS (PC) with Lead Related Civil Consolidated Case No. 1:06-cv-01801-BLW-LMB (PC), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/30/2010. All Future Filings to be Made in Lead Case 1:06-cv-01801-BLW-LMB (PC); Member Case 1:10-cv-01793-MJS (PC) CLOSED. Plaintiff George Vasquez added. (Verduzco, M)

(PC) George N. Allen v. Mayberg et al

Doc. 74

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 GEORGE VASQUEZ, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 STEVEN MAYBERG, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 / 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff George Vasquez is civilly detained in Coalinga State Hospital ("CSH") pursuant to the California Sexually Violent Predator Act ("SVPA"). Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants, administrators at CSH, have violated his constitutional rights by implementing procedures that will result in the seizure of personal electronic equipment, such as his laptop computer and external memory drives. Plaintiff asks for monetary damages and injunctive relief and has moved for a ORDER REASSIGNING AND CONSOLIDATING CIVIL CASE No. 1:10-cv1973-MJS WITH LEAD RELATED CIVIL CONSOLIDATED CASE No. 1:06-cv-1801BLW -LMB CASE NO. 1:10-cv-1973-MJS (PC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin Defendants from seizing his electronic property. The consolidated case of Allen v. Mayberg, No, 1:06-cv-1801-BLW-LMB, involves claims by civil detainees detained pursuant to the SVPA relating to CSH's moratorium on computers and other electronic equipment. The suit challenges CSH's authority to confiscate the equipment. On July 22, 2010, Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle directed other judges in the district to review their cases and reassign and consolidate any actions

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

that were sufficiently related to the claims asserted in that case.1 Judge Boyle stated that a related case should be reassigned unless it "has been processed to the point that it is close enough to resolution so that consolidation would effect an unnecessary delay." (Allen, ECF No. 54.) The Court has reviewed the claims asserted in Allen, as well as Plaintiff's claim in the above-captioned action, and finds that they are sufficiently related so as to warrant consolidation. Moreover, the instant action was only recently filed. Consolidation would not, therefore, effect unnecessary delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008). In fact, Plaintiff is far more likely to be afforded timely relief through consolidation and participation in the scheduled triage conference than if he were to proceed with this individual action.2 Accordingly, the Court hereby orders that the above-captioned action be CONSOLIDATED with lead case Allen v. Mayberg, 1:06-cv-1801-BLW-LMB and REASSIGNED to the presiding judge. The Clerk of Court is to file a copy of this Order in both the above-captioned docket and the docket in Allen v. Mayberg, 1:06-cv-1801-BLWLMB in order to notify both courts and all parties of the reassignment and consolidation. The Clerk shall close this member case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ci4d6 October 30, 2010 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Michael J. Seng

Although Judge Boyle lim ite d the consolidation of additional actions to thirty days after the R e p o r t and Recom m e n d a t io n was filed, the Court finds that consolidation of this case is appropriate b e c a u s e the triage conference has not yet taken place. The parties to this case will have a reasonable a m o u n t of tim e to prepare for the triage conference, which the undersigned believes is scheduled in D e c e m b e r 2010. Plaintiff is free to refile his Tem p o r a r y Restraining Order in the consolidated action. However, th e Court has ordered the parties to address whether seizure of electronic equipm e n t is appropriate at the tr ia g e conference. (Allen, ECF No. 64.) In response to the Court's order, Defendants have stated: " D e f e n d a n t s will m a k e a determ in a t io n if confiscation is appropriate after the triage conference is held with t h is honorable court." (Allen, ECF No. 70.)
2

1

-2-