Stewart Manago v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 26

ORDER CONSOLIDATING Action With Case No. 1:11-cv-01269 SMS, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/13/12. (MEMBER CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00488 DLB (PC))(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

STEWART MANAGO,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:12-cv-00488-DLB PC
ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTION
WITH CASE NO. 1:11-CV-01269-SMS

v.
F. GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff Stewart Manago (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

17

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on March 30, 2012. Upon

18

review of this case, the Court concludes that this action involves a common question of law and fact

19

as those raised in Manago v. Gonzalez, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-01269-SMS, E.D. Cal., filed on

20

August 1, 2011, and both should be consolidated.

21

Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the court

22

involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all

23

matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid

24

unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising the Court’s discretion, the Court “weights the saving of

25

time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it

26

would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). Consolidation may occur

27

upon motion or sua sponte. In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987).

28

The present action, Case No. 1:12-cv-00488-DLB PC, contains common questions of law
1

1

and fact as Case No. 1:11-cv-01269-SMS. In both actions, Plaintiff complains of being retaliated

2

against for his filing of grievances and reporting prison official misconduct by being placed on

3

management cell watch, being housed with an enemy gang member, and having his legal

4

correspondence from his attorney read outside of his presence. Plaintiff names the same twenty-five

5

Defendants in both actions: F. Gonzalez, M. D. Stainer, K. Holland, T. Steadman, M. Bryant, J.

6

Gutierrez, M. Dunlop, J. Gentry, C. Contreras, J. Tyree, K. Sigston, J. Franco, A. Smith, K. Soto, K.

7

Sampton, G. Stelfer, T. Turmezei, Adame, W. Gutierrez, A. Cantu, A. Ortiz, Webb, B. Powell, R.

8

Harris, and S. Burris. Case No. 11-cv-01269 was recently reopened. Neither complaint was

9

screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In the interest of judicial economy, the Court finds that

10

these two actions should be consolidated.

11
12

Accordingly, in light of the common questions of law and fact of the instant action to the
Plaintiff’s previously filed action, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

13
14

1)

future filings in this action are to be filed in 1:11-cv-01269-SMS;

15
16

The instant action is CONSOLIDATED with Case No. 1:11-cv-01269-SMS. All

2)

The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in Case No.1:11-cv-01269-SMS

and the instant action; and

17

3)

The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this action.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

September 13, 2012

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22

DEAC_Signature-END:

23

3b142a

24
25
26
27
28
2