Robinson v. Adams, et al.

Filing 159

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Recual of the District Court Judge 150 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/30/12. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DWAYNE LUCAS,

11

CASE NO.
Plaintiff,

12

1:12-cv-01830-MJS (PC)

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CIVIL CASE NO.
1:12-cv-01830-MJS WITH RELATED AND
PREVIOUSLY FILED CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12cv-01804-GBC

v.

13
D. TARTAGLIA, et al.,
14

(ECF No. 1)
Defendants.

15

/

16
17

SCREENING ORDER

18
19

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

20

On November 8, 2012, Plaintiff Dwayne Lucas, a state prisoner proceeding pro se

21

and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No.

22

1.) Plaintiff’s Complaint is now before the Court for screening.

23

II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

24
25
26

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

27
1

1

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has

2

raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or that fail to state a claim upon which

3

relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

4
5

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion

6

thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court

7

determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

8

granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

9
10

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the ‘deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” Wilder v.

11
12

Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983

13

is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating

14

federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).

15

III.

16

The Complaint names the following Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) officials as

17

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Defendants: (1) D. Tartaglia, Librarian; (2) N. Olsen, Senior Librarian; and (3) Thompson,

18
19

Library Officer.

20

Plaintiff alleges the following:

21

On April 1, 2012, Plaintiff received notification of a pending April 19, 2012, deadline

22

in a legal matter he was pursuing. Plaintiff filed numerous library access requests and was

23

granted Priority Library User status on April 11, 2012, but was only called to the library

24

twice prior to the week of the deadline. The library access was inadequate and resulted

25
in an unfavorable decision in his legal proceeding. The Defendants failed to ensure that
26
27

Plaintiff received sufficient access to library resources. (Compl. at 3, 4.)
2

1
2

IV.

ANALYSIS
A.

Section 1983

3
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
4
5

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and

6

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

7

See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243,

8

1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

9
10

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are

11
12

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by

13

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949

14

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set

15

forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its

16

face.’” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant

17

committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal

18
19

conclusions are not. Id. at 1949-50.

20

B.

21

On November 5, 2012, Plaintiff initiated a civil rights action, Lucas v. Tartaglia, No.

22

1:12-cv-01804-GBC, claiming violations similar, if not identical, to those raised in the

23

instant complaint. Both complaints identify Librarian D. Tartaglia, Senior Librarian N.

24

Consolidation

Olsen, and Library Officer Thompson as Defendants. Plaintiff alleges in both actions that

25
26

these Defendants failed to ensure that Plaintiff received adequate library access prior to

27
3

1

an April 19, 2012 court deadline. The crux of Plaintiff’s claims in both cases is a denial of

2

library access in the month of April 2012. The difference between the complaints is

3

minimal (Plaintiff adds exhibits to the second complaint and requests more damages).

4
5

Plaintiff may have intended the latter complaint to serve as an amended pleading.

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits the Court to consolidate actions

7

involving a common question of law or fact, and consolidation is proper when it serves the

8

purposes of judicial economy and convenience. “The district court has broad discretion

9

under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co.

10

v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir.

11
12

1989). In determining whether to consolidate actions, the Court weighs the interest of

13

judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by

14

consolidation. Southwest Marine, Inc., v. Triple A. Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805,

15

807 (N.D. Cal. 1989). Plaintiff’s claims in the above-captioned action are similar, if not

16

identical, to the allegations advanced in the former complaint. Plaintiff asserts identical

17

causes of action in each case and requests similar relief. The Court foresees little risk in

18
causing delay, confusion, or prejudice. Plaintiff is far more likely to be afforded timely
19
20

relief through consolidation. The two actions involve common questions of law and fact

21

and therefore warrant consolidation. Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203

22

(9th Cir. 2008).

23

V.

24

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby orders that this case be

25
26

CONSOLIDATED with case Lucas v. Tartaglia, No. 1:12-cv-01804-GBC. The Clerk of

27
4

1

Court is to file a copy of this Order in both the above-captioned docket and the docket in

2

Lucas v. Tartaglia, No. 1:12-cv-01804-GBC in order to notify all parties of the consolidation.

3

The Clerk shall administratively close this case. All future filings shall be in action number

4
5

1:12-cv-01804-GBC.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:
ci4d6

November 29, 2012

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
5