Mitchell v. James et al

Filing 37

ORDER In Response to Defendants' Notice of Related Cases; ORDER Consolidating Cases; ORDER for Clerk to Consolidate Case No. 1:15-00467-DLB-PC with this case; ORDER for Plaintiff to File an Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Case No. 1:11-cv-00099-LJO-GSA-PC, within Thirty Days,signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/3/15. (30-Day Deadline) (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

DESHAWN MITCHELL,

7

Plaintiff,

8
9

vs.

ORDER IN RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS‟ NOTICE OF
RELATED CASES
(Doc. 36.)

SERGEANT M. JONES, et al.,

10

Defendants.

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
ORDER FOR CLERK TO
CONSOLIDATE CASE NO. 1:15-cv00467-DLB-PC WITH THIS CASE

11
12

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT IN THE
CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. 1:11-cv00099-LJO-GSA-PC, WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS

13
14
15
16

1:11-cv-00099-LJO-GSA-PC

I.

BACKGROUND

17

Deshawn Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff‟s original Complaint,

19

filed on January 20, 2011, against defendant Sergeant M. Jones (“Defendant”) for subjecting

20

Plaintiff to adverse conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc.

21

1.) Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on August 7, 2014, and this case is presently

22

in the discovery phase. (Docs. 32, 34.)

23

On March 25, 2015, Defendant filed a notice of related cases. (Doc. 36.)

24
25
26
27
28

1

On March 13, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from
this action, based on Plaintiff‟s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 15.) The order dismissed Plaintiff‟s claims for
improper processing of inmate appeals and for supervisory liability. (Id.) The order also dismissed defendants
Lieutenant D. James, Property Officer F. Carreon, Correctional Officer J. Mendez, Appeals Coordinator R.
Gomez, Appeals Coordinator R. Hall, and Appeals Coordinator L. Zinani from this action based on Plaintiff's
failure to state any claims against them. (Id.)
1

1

II.

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE

2

Defendant contends that this case is related to case 1:15-cv-00467-DLB-PC,2 Deshawn

3

Mitchell v. Sergeant Matt Jones, because the cases have the same or similar facts and claims.

4

Defendant asserts that in both cases, Plaintiff Deshawn Mitchell (K-70241) asserted identical

5

claims regarding an incident on June 5, 2010, wherein Defendant Jones allegedly violated

6

Plaintiff‟s First Amendment rights.

7

screened out Plaintiff‟s First Amendment claim, and Plaintiff agreed to proceed only on the

8

cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Jones. (Doc. 11 at 5:22-25, 6:19-27;

9

Doc. 13.)

Defendant asserts that in the instant case, the court

10

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff re-filed his First Amendment claim in the Kings County

11

Superior Court on September 19, 2014, and on March 24, 2015, defendant Jones removed the

12

case to this federal district court [where it was opened as case 15-cv-00467-DLB-PC].

13

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff‟s claim in the removed matter is identical to his dismissed claim

14

in this action and thus, both cases require the determination of identical questions of law and

15

fact. In addition, Sergeant Jones is the only remaining defendant in the instant matter and the

16

only defendant in the case removed from the Kings County Superior Court. Defendant argues

17

that these cases should be assigned to a single judge to avoid inconsistent rulings and

18

duplication of judicial resources.

19

A.

20

The court has reviewed the Complaints in both actions and finds that the two cases are

21

Analysis

related and should be consolidated.

22

Consolidation – Legal Standard

23

AIf actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may

24

consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). Consolidation may be ordered on the motion

25

of any party or on the court=s own motion whenever it reasonably appears that consolidation

26
27
28

2

Defendant refers to the related case as case number 1:15-at-00237, which was the temporary
case number that was assigned when the case was first received by the court. Subsequently, the case was
processed by the Clerk and assigned its present case number 1:15-cv-00467-DLB-PC.
2

1

would aid in the efficient and economic disposition of a case. See In re Air Crash Disaster at

2

Florida Everglades on December 29, 1972, 549 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1977). The grant or denial

3

of a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court=s sound discretion, and is not dependent on

4

party approval. Investors Research Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989);

5

Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir. 1993). In determining whether to

6

consolidate actions, the court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential

7

for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation. Southwest Marine, Inc., v. Triple

8

A. Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989).

9

(This Case) 1:11-cv-00099-LJO-GSA-PC

10

Plaintiff filed this case on January 4, 2011 at this court. The case now proceeds with

11

the original Complaint against sole defendant Sergeant M. Jones, based on events occurring at

12

the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (SATF) in Corcoran,

13

California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there. Included in the Complaint is an incident

14

occurring on June 5, 2010, in which Plaintiff alleges:
“On June 5th of 2010 Defendant M. Jones appeared at Plaintiff‟s
cell and addressed Plaintiff in a very loud tone so other prisoners
would hear Defendant M. Jones speaking to Plaintiff. Defendant
M. Jones stated „Since you want to continue to write grievances
against me and my staff I‟m going to make sure that all of the
active Crips in Ad-Seg housing know you are nothing but a
snitch and a Sensitive Needs Yard bitch to make sure you will
never be able to walk on another General Population Yard
again.‟” (Case 1:11-cv-00099-LJO-GSA-PC, Complaint, Doc. 1
at 7:14-24.)

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

(Related Case) 1:15-cv-00467-DLB-PC

22

The related case was initiated by civil complaint filed by Plaintiff in the Kings County

23

Superior Court on September 19, 2014 (Case #14-C0336). On March 24, 2015, sole defendant

24

Sergeant Matt Jones removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. ' 1441(c).

25

Complaint names only one defendant, Sergeant Matt Jones, and is based on only one event,

26

which allegedly occurred on June 5, 2010 at SATF, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there.

27

Plaintiff alleges:

28

///
3

The

1
2
3
4
5
6

“On June 5, 2010 Defendant Sergeant Matt Jones appeared at
Plaintiff‟s cell and addressed Plaintiff in a loud tone so other
prisoners would be able to hear Defendant Sergeant Matt Jones
speaking to Plaintiff. Defendant Sergeant Matt Jones stated
„Since you want to continue to write grievances against me and
my staff I‟m going to make sure that all of the active Crips in AdSeg housing know you are nothing but a snitch and a Sensitive
Needs Yard bitch to make sure you will never be able to walk on
another General Population Yard again.‟” (Case 15-cv-00467DLB-PC, Complaint, Doc. 2 at 6:6-15.)

7

Discussion

8

It is plain from a reading of the allegations that the June 5, 2010 incident described in

9

both cases is the same incident. Both cases now proceed against the same sole defendant,

10

Sergeant M. Jones, and common questions of law and fact appear to exist in these actions. The

11

discovery issues in these actions will be identical in each case with respect to the June 5, 2010

12

incident. Consolidating these actions will avoid unnecessary costs incurred due to identical

13

discovery and motion practice occurring in separate actions.

14

It is in the interest of judicial economy to avoid duplication by consolidating these

15

actions for all purposes. Consolidation will conserve judicial resources and the resources of

16

the parties by addressing identical issues in a single case. It serves judicial economy to “avoid

17

the inefficiency of separate trials involving related parties, witnesses, and evidence.”

18

E.E.O.C., 135 F.3d at 551.

19

Consolidation of these actions will not cause a delay, and in fact may expedite the case

20

because service of process upon defendant Jones in this case has been completed. There is

21

little risk of confusion due to the consolidation of these actions, as the same facts concerning

22

the same defendant are found in both cases, and Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file a

23

consolidated complaint and proceed in one action. Finally, the Court can discern no prejudice

24

to any of the parties by consolidating these actions, and consolidation will avoid the danger of

25

having inconsistent verdicts in the related cases. The factors considered weigh in favor of

26

consolidating these actions for all purposes.

27

Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file an amended complaint in the consolidated action,

28

including all claims against defendant Jones and any other related claims Plaintiff believes to
4

1

be cognizable. The amended complaint shall supercede Plaintiff‟s original complaints, and the

2

court shall screen the consolidated complaint and issue a new screening order before defendant

3

Jones is required to file an Answer.

4

III.

CONCLUSION

5

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

7

8

Mitchell v. Jones, with this case.
2.

9
10

This case, Case No. 1:11-cv-00099-LJO-GSA-PC, shall be designated as the
lead case, and Case No. 1:15-cv-00467-DLB-PC shall be closed;

3.

11
12

The Clerk‟s Office is directed to consolidate Case No. 1:15-cv-00467-DLB-PC,

From this date forward, the parties shall use Case No. 1:11-cv-00099-LJO-GSAPC on all documents submitted to the court for the consolidated case;

4.

Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to

13

file an amended complaint in the consolidated case, using Case No. 1:11-cv-

14

00099-LJO-GSA-PC and including all of the claims upon which Plaintiff wishes

15

to proceed, as instructed by this order;

16

5.

The Clerk‟s Office is directed to:

17

1.

Close Case No. 1:15-cv-00467-DLB-PC;

18

2.

Docket and serve this order in both cases, Case No. 1:11-cv-00099-LJO-

19

GSA-PC and Case No. 1:15-cv-00467-DLB-PC; and

20

3.

Send Plaintiff an amended complaint form.

21
22

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 3, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
5