Castro v. Terhune, et al

Filing 256

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STAY AND DECLINING TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS by Judge Alsup denying (253) Motion to Stay in case 3:98-cv-04877-WHA (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Phase II of Castro v. Terhune, Case No. 3:98-cv-04877-WHA, is scheduled for a bench trial beginning on September 20, 2010. It will address plaintiff's "revalidation" as a prison gang associate in August 2009. Terhune was recently related to Castro v. Horel, Case No. 3:09-cv-04902-WHA, which will address plaintiff's "active/inactive" review as a prison gang associate in 2006. Plaintiff requests that Terhune and Horel be consolidated for trial. v. ROBERT A. HOREL, D. MOUNT, J., BEESON, S. MCKINNEY, N. GRANNIS, EVERETT W. FISCHER, D. L. SPEEN, M. DUFF, DOES 1-100, Defendants. / v. CAL TERHUNE, Director, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, G. BONNIE GARIBAY, J. BATCHELOR, S. C. WOLHWEND, A. SCRIBNER, J. STOKES, M. YARBOROUGH, L. HOOD, C. CAMPBELL, A. M. GONZALEZ, M. AYALA, E. DERUSHA, c/o ROBERT L. L. AYERS, Warden, and J. MARTINEZ, Defendants. CARLOS CASTRO, Plaintiff, / CARLOS CASTRO, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. C 98-04877 WHA No. C 09-04902 WHA ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STAY AND DECLINING TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants oppose consolidation and have requested that Horel be stayed until after the Phase II trial in Terhune is complete. The request to consolidate the two matters is DENIED. Although there are some common questions of law and fact to both matters, they nevertheless involve different defendants, prison staff and gang evidence. Consolidation would necessitate delay of the pretrial schedule in Terhune and would not promote increased efficiency or convenience in the resolution of either matter. The request to stay Horel is also DENIED. Defendants argue that resolution of Phase II of Terhune will likely moot Horel but they presuppose that Castro's 2009 revalidation satisfied his procedural due process rights, the very issue still to be decided in the Phase II trial. Accordingly, no stay of Horel is warranted and both Horel and Terhune shall continue to proceed towards trial on separate tracks.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2010.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2