Cranford v. Badagon

Filing 40

ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS and DESIGNATING LEAD CASE as 1:11-cv-00736-LJO-BAM; ORDER for Clerk to CLOSE MEMBER CASE 1:13-cv-00906-LJO-BAM, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/16/2013. Defendants Samantha Perryman and Charlotte Havder added. Attorney Andreas Oliver Garza added for Samantha Perryman and Charlotte Havder. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ANGELA BADAGON,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________________ )
)
RELATED ACTION 1:13-cv-00906 LJO)
BAM PC
)
)
ARCHIE CRANFORD,

CASE No. 1:11-cv-00736-LJO-BAM PC
1:13-cv-00906-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS
AND DESIGNATING LEAD CASE AS
1:11-cv-00736-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE
1:13-cv-00906-LJO-BAM PC

19
20

I.

Procedural History

21

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in these civil rights

22

actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint in 1:11-cv-00736-

23

LJO-BAM. On June 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint in 1:13-cv-00906-LJO-BAM.
On October 30, 2013, Defendants in both actions filed a motion for consolidation. On

24
25

November 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for consolidation in 1:13-cv-00906-

26

LJO-BAM. On December 13, 2013, Defendant filed a reply in 1:11-cv-00736-LJO-BAM. The

27

motion in both actions is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

28

///
1

1

II.

A.

2
3

Complaint Allegations
1:11-cv-00736-LJO-BAM

Plaintiff, a patient at Coalinga State Hospital, brings suit against an employee of the hospital,

4

Angela Balcagon (erroneously sued as Badagon). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Balcagon assaulted

5

him by striking him in the chest and kicking him in the legs on January 13, 2011.

6

This action is set for jury trial on February 19, 2014.
B.

7
8

1:13-cv-00906-LJO-BAM

Plaintiff brings suit against two employees of Coalinga State Hospital, Samantha Perryman and

9

Charlotte Harder (erroneously sued as Havder). Plaintiff alleges that on May 20, 2013, Defendants

10

Perryman and Havder transferred Plaintiff from Unit Two at Coalinga State Hospital to Unit One.

11

Jonny Lopez, a Unit Two Nurse, warned Defendants that placing Plaintiff in Unit One would present a

12

danger to Plaintiff’s life and health because Angela Balcagon, a nurse who worked in Unit One, had

13

allegedly harmed Plaintiff on a prior occasion. Twenty minutes after Defendants transferred Plaintiff

14

to Unit One, Nurse Balcagon struck Plaintiff in the face with a broom handle.

15

This action is currently in the discovery stage.

16

III.

17

Consolidation is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42. Rule 42(a) provides as

18

Consolidation of Actions

follows:

19

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

20

(1)

join for hearing or trial any or all of the matters at issue in the actions;

(2)

consolidate the actions; or

(3)

issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.

21
22
23
24

Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a).

25

Consolidation may be ordered on motion of any party or on the court’s own motion whenever

26

it reasonably appears that consolidation would aid in the efficient and economic disposition of a case.

27

See In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades on December 29, 1972, 549 F.2d 1006 (5th

28

Cir.1977). The grant or denial of a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court’s sound discretion, and
2

1

is not dependent on party approval. Investors Research Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 877 F.2d 777

2

(9th Cir.1989); Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir.1993). In determining whether to

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

Here, the two actions pending before the Court involve common questions of law and fact.

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Specifically, they both concern the same allegations that Defendant Balcagon

8

allegedly harmed Plaintiff in January 2011. If the actions are not consolidated, there will be a

9

duplication of effort by the court and parties in trying the same facts twice and there will be a

10

possibility of inconsistent verdicts by different juries. Therefore, to aid in the efficient and economic

11

disposition of these cases and to avoid inconsistent verdicts, the Court in its discretion shall order

12

Plaintiff’s actions consolidated.

13

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

15

into a single case;

16

2.

17

LJO-BAM;

18

3.

The Clerk of the Court shall docket this order in both cases; and

19

4.

The Clerk of the Court shall close case 1:13-cv-00906-LJO-BAM.

Cases 1:11-cv-00736-LJO-BAM and 1:13-cv-00906-LJO-BAM shall be consolidated

The operative complaints in both actions are deemed consolidated into 1:11-cv-00736-

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

December 16, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

27
28
3