(PC) Saylor v. Allison et al
ORDER DENYING 10 Motion to Permit Joinder of Actions, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 07/16/2021. (Maldonado, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRIAN E. SAYLOR,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01062-EPG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PERMIT
JOINDER OF ACTIONS
KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,
(ECF No. 10)
Plaintiff Brian Saylor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On July 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting joinder of this case with Saylor v.
Torres, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01631-DAD-JLT (the “Torres Action”). (ECF No. 10.) The
motion explains that “plaintiff has filed two actions severally, within this court, whose relief
might be joined.” (Id.) Plaintiff requests that “all parties be relieved from the added burden of
pleading two actions severally when they appropriately might instead be joined by cause of
The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion to consolidate this case and the Torres
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides:
If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the
join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the
consolidate the actions; or
issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
The decision of whether to consolidate cases under Rule 42 is within the broad discretion
of the Court. Pierce v. Cty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A district court
generally has ‘broad’ discretion to consolidate actions.”). In determining whether to consolidate
actions, the court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay,
confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation. Southwest Marine, Inc., v. Triple A. Mach.
Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989).
The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff has not established that this case and the
Torres Action involve common questions of law or fact. The Court’s initial review of the
complaints in the respective cases indicates that these cases do not involve the same or similar
parties, claims, events, or issues. Therefore, there does not appear to be any judicial convenience
resulting from consolidation of this case and the Torres Action.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Permit Joinder of
Actions (ECF No. 10), construed as a motion for consolidation, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 16, 2021
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?