Evans v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/12/2017 DENYING without prejudice 7 Motion to Consolidate Cases. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD ANTHONY EVANS,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:17-cv-1890 DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION,
Defendant.

17
18

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

19

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff moves to consolidate the present action with two other

20

cases: (1) Evans v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2:17-cv-1888 AC;

21

and (2) Evans v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2:17-cv-1891 JAM

22

KJN. Plaintiff filed the same motion in these other cases. In both, the motion was denied. In the

23

lead case, 2:17-cv-1888 AC, Judge Claire held:

24
25
26
27
28

The court notes that, of the three cases plaintiff seeks to
consolidate, only the immediate one has been screened. Thus, the
court cannot yet determine whether plaintiff’s claims in the other
two cases will involve common questions of law or fact. Indeed, the
court has dismissed plaintiff’s claims in this case with leave to
amend and, consequently, cannot even compare them to his
potential claims in the other cases. Therefore, plaintiff’s request
will be DENIED without prejudice as premature. Plaintiff may
renew his motion to consolidate once he has filed an adequate
1

1

complaint in this case and his other cases have been screened. If he
elects to do so, he should bear the above referenced standards in
mind and articulate why the convenience of consolidating his
claims outweighs the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice
to the relevant defendants.

2
3
4

(Case No. 2:17-cv-1888 AC (ECF No. 11 at 2).) In case no. 2:17-cv-1891 JAM KJN, Judge

5

Newman agreed with that analysis. (Case No. 2:17-cv-1891 JAM KJM (ECF No. 8 at 2-3).) The

6

undersigned magistrate judge concurs as well. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied on the same

7

grounds.

8
9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to consolidate cases
(ECF No. 7) is denied without prejudice.
Dated: December 12, 2017

11
12
13
14
15
16

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/evan1890.mot consolidate

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2