Moon v. Reece et al

Filing 23

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motions To Consolidate (ECF Nos. 5 and 13 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/18/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ADRIAN MOON,

11

CASE NO.
Plaintiff,

12

1:12-cv-01243-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO CONSOLIDATE

v.
(ECF Nos. 5 and 13)

13
C. REECE, et al.,
14
Defendants.

15

/

16
17
18

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

19

On July 30, 2012, Plaintiff Adrian Moon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

20

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.)

21

Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 10.)

22
23

On December 26, 2012, Plaintiff’s Complaint was screened and dismissed, with
leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 17.) On July 30, 2012

24
25
26

and August 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed motions to consolidate various other civil cases with this
present action. (ECF Nos. 5 and 13.) The motions to consolidate are now before the

27
1

1

Court.

2

II.

3

CONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS
Plaintiff moves to consolidate the following cases with the instant action: Moon v.

4
5

Junious, et al., No. 1:12-cv-00096-GSA; Moon v. Mullin, et al., No. 2:11-cv-03277-EFB;

6

Moon v. Leroy Baca, et al., No. 2:12-cv-05754-UA-MLG; and Jones v. Grounds, et al., No.

7

5:12-cv-02946-LHK.

8

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

9

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

10

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

11
12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

807 (N.D. Cal. 1989).

18
19

Plaintiff argues that the cases he seeks to consolidate share common questions of

20

law and fact with those raised in the present action. However, the motions advocating

21

consolidation do not explain the alleged relationship or how consolidation would result in

22

economy and convenience. The Court can not determine whether the cases share

23

common questions of law or fact because there is no operative complaint in this action.

24

The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to comply with the

25
pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).
26
27

A review of the case dockets show that the majority of these cases are unlikely
2

1

candidates for consolidation. Moon v. Mullin, et al., No. 2:11-cv-03277-EFB was dismissed

2

on September 6, 2012. A similar motion to consolidate that case with the instant action

3

was also denied for failure to demonstrate a commonality of law and facts. Plaintiff’s

4
5

appeal of the judgment is pending. Moon v. Leroy Baca, et al., No. 2:12-cv-05754-UA-

6

MLG and Jones v. Grounds, et al., No. 5:12-cv-02946-LHK are cases outside the Eastern

7

District of California. The former case was also dismissed along with Plaintiff’s appeal in

8

that action. Plaintiff is not a party to the latter case. A motion to dismiss was recently filed

9

in it. Finally, Moon v. Junious, et al., No. 1:12-cv-00096-GSA is currently active in this

10

district. The Court in that case recently denied a similar motion to consolidate.

11
Plaintiff’s motions to consolidate fail to demonstrate that any of the aforementioned

12
13

cases include common questions of law or fact or that any economy or convenience would

14

be achieved through consolidation.

15

procedurally, some to judgment, and would likely cause delay and confusion rather than

16

economy or convenience.

17

III.

Each of the identified cases have advanced

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

18
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to consolidate, filed July 30, 2012 and August 23,

19
20

2012, are HEREBY ORDERED DENIED, without prejudice.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated:
ci4d6

January 18, 2013

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
3