Hoffmann v. Lassen Adult Detention Facitity, et al.
Filing
130
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 09/14/18 RECOMMENDING that defendants' motion to consolidate 15-1526 and 1558 for trial 127 be denied. Motion 127 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KASEY F. HOFFMAN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2: 15-cv-1558 JAM KJN P
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
LASSEN ADULT DETENTION
FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant
19
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for trial before the Honorable John A. Mendez on October
20
22, 2018. Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to consolidate for trial this action with
21
Hoffman v. Jones, 15-cv-1526 JAM EFB P. (ECF No. 127.) On September 10, 2018, plaintiff
22
filed an opposition. (ECF No. 128.) On September 12, 2018, defendant filed a reply. (ECF No.
23
129.)
24
For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that defendant’s motion to
25
consolidate be denied.
26
Legal Standard
27
28
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits the court to consolidate actions involving a
common question of law or fact, and consolidation is proper when it serves the purposes of
1
1
judicial economy and convenience. See Devlin v. Transportation Communications Intern. Union,
2
175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d. Cir. 1999); Young v. City of Augusta, 59 F.3d 1160, 1169 (11th Cir.
3
1995). The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary cost or delay where the claims and
4
issues contain common aspects of law or fact. E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th
5
Cir. 1998); see also Malone v. Strong, 2016 WL 3546037, n.2 (W.D. Wash. 2016) (citing
6
E.E.O.C., 135 F.3d at 551) (primary purpose of consolidation is to promote trial court efficiency
7
and avoid the danger of inconsistent adjudications).
8
9
District courts have broad discretion to grant or deny consolidation. Pierce v. Cnty. of
Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008); see also In re Adams Apples, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484,
10
1487 (9th Cir. 1987). In deciding whether to consolidate, a court should weigh “the saving of
11
time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it
12
would cause,” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Zhu v. UCBH
13
Holdings, Inc., 682 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010), as well as balancing “the interest of
14
judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice caused by
15
consolidation.” S.W. Marine Inc. v. Triple A Mach. Shop, 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal.
16
1989).
17
Discussion
18
19
20
At the outset, the undersigned describes the claims on which 15-1558 and 15-1526
proceed.
Case No. 15-1558 proceeds against defendant Lassen County Jail Commander Jones as to
21
plaintiff’s claim that defendant Jones violated plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by denying
22
plaintiff’s request for a Kosher diet in 2015.
23
Case No. 15-1526 also proceeds against defendant Jones. In 15-1526, plaintiff alleges
24
that in 2015, defendant Jones retaliated against him for filing grievances regarding several matters
25
by threatening plaintiff with the loss of good time credits if he continued to use the grievance
26
procedure. In 15-1526, plaintiff claims that defendant Jones threatened to retaliate against him
27
for filing grievances, including one regarding plumbing, and because plaintiff had gone “over his
28
head” to get his Kosher diet approved, via administrative grievance.
2
1
The undersigned now considers whether 15-1558 and 15-1526 involve common questions
2
of fact or law. Cases 15-1558 and 15-1526 do not involve common questions of law. Case 15-
3
1558 involves whether defendant Jones denied plaintiff’s First Amendment right to practice his
4
religion by denying plaintiff’s request for a Kosher diet. Case 15-1526 involves whether
5
defendant Jones retaliated against plaintiff for filing grievances.
6
For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned finds that 15-1558 and 15-1526 do not
7
involve common questions of fact. In 15-1558, defendant does not dispute that he denied
8
plaintiff’s request for a Kosher diet, which was ultimately approved by Lassen County
9
Undersheriff Mineau. (ECF No. 106 at 2 (defendant’s pretrial statement). The main issue to be
10
addressed at trial in 15-1558 is the sincerity of plaintiff’s religious beliefs, the harm suffered by
11
plaintiff as a result of not receiving his Kosher meals, and the degree to which plaintiff’s exercise
12
of religion was burdened.
13
Case 15-1526 does not involve plaintiff’s religious beliefs. Instead, 15-1526 addresses
14
whether defendant Jones retaliated against plaintiff for filing grievances, including the grievance
15
requesting a Kosher meal. In the findings and recommendations filed in 15-1526 addressing
16
defendant’s summary judgment motion, Magistrate Judge Brennan stated,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
[t]he crux of defendant’s motion for summary judgment is his
argument that by simply informing plaintiff of the disciplinary
consequences of abuse of the grievance process, defendant served the
legitimate correctional goal of curbing excessive grievances. But the
evidence before the court concerning whether plaintiff’s grievances
were excessive – particularly in the time before defendant made the
statement is in conflict.
(15-cv-1526 at ECF No. 46 at 12.)
It is clear that the sincerity of plaintiff’s religious beliefs is not relevant to the retaliation
claim raised in 15-1526.
Defendant argues that if these actions have separate trials, two different factfinders may
25
have to determine whether plaintiff’s grievance with respect to Kosher meals was meritorious or
26
abusive, and each factfinder could come to an opposite conclusion.
27
28
As discussed above, it is undisputed that Undersheriff Mineau granted plaintiff’s
grievance requesting a Kosher diet. Based on this circumstance, the undersigned does not
3
1
understand defendant’s argument that two separate jury’s will have to decide whether this
2
grievance was abusive or meritorious. In any event, a jury in 15-1526 will not be asked to
3
evaluate the merit of all of the 36 grievances plaintiff filed between March 12, 2015, and August
4
20, 2015, in order to determine whether defendant retaliated against plaintiff. (See 15-1526 at
5
ECF No. 46 at 2, 9-10.) In other words, a jury in 15-1526 will not be asked to decide if
6
plaintiff’s religious beliefs were sincere.
7
The undersigned also finds that consolidating these actions for trial, while convenient for
8
defendant, may confuse the jury based on the tangential relationship of the claims raised in these
9
actions.
10
11
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to consolidate
15-1526 and 1558 for trial (ECF No. 127) be denied.
12
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
13
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
14
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
15
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
16
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
17
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
18
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
19
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
20
Dated: September 14, 2018
21
22
23
24
25
Hoff1558.con
26
27
28
4
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?