Cejas v. Myers, et al.

Filing 169

ORDER DENYING 162 Plaintiff's Motion to Join Oppositions signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/30/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDREW A. CEJAS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

Case No. 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO JOIN OPPOSITIONS

v.
(Document 162)

14

MYERS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Andrew A. Cejas (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

19

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint for violation of the First Amendment against numerous

20

Defendants.

21

Defendants’ January 11, 2016, motions for summary judgment are pending. 1

22

On March 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that his oppositions to the two

23

motions be joined, as he believes that the facts overlap and support each motion. Defendants Foston,

24

Van Leer and Pimentel opposed the motion on March 24, 2016. The Court deems the matter

25

suitable for decision without additional briefing.

26
27
28

1

There are seven Defendants in this action, though they are not represented by the same counsel. Defendants Myers,
Trimble, McGee and Fisher are represented by Janine K. Jeffrey. Defendants Foston, Van Leer and Pimentel are
represented by Shanan L. Hewitt. As a result, there are two separate motions for summary judgment.

1

1

Given that there are two separate motions for summary judgment, and that both motions

2

appear fully briefed, the Court will not join Plaintiff’s oppositions at this time. Plaintiff’s request to

3

join the oppositions was made after Defendants Foston, Van Leer and Pimentel filed their reply, and

4

joining the oppositions would deprive those Defendants of addressing issues raised in Plaintiff’s

5

other opposition. Moreover, Plaintiff has filed numerous documents in opposition to both motions,

6

from February 22, 2016, through March 23, 2016. Any consolidation of his oppositions would add

7

confusion to briefing that is already somewhat complicated.

8

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

March 30, 2016

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2