Harris v. Pimentel, et al.

Filing 41

ORDER DENYING 40 Motion to Consolidate Cases, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/27/15. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARRELL HARRIS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:13-CV-01354-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE CASES (ECF No. 40)

v.

15
16
17

R. PIMENTEL, et al.,
Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

20

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s

21

Free Exercise, RLUIPA and Equal Protection claims against Defendant Escamilla. (ECF

22
23
24

No. 10.) Escamilla has been served and has appeared in the action. (ECF No. 14.)
On May 13, 2015, Plaintiff moved to consolidate the instant action with a state

25

court case now pending appeal. (ECF No. 40, at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that the two cases

26

involve the same parties and the same or similar claims.

27
28

This Court has no power to consolidate the instant action with an action filed in a

1

state court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Under Rule 42, a court may only consolidate actions

2

that are pending before it.

3
4

Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to

consolidate.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is HEREBY DENIED.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
Dated:

May 27, 2015

/s/

9

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Michael J. Seng

2