Falla v. Ducart et al

Filing 19

AMENDED ORDER RELATING CASES; ADDRESSING REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 10/19/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2016)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

DANIEL CISNEROS,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8

AMENDED ORDER RELATING CASES;
ADDRESSING REQUESTS FOR
EXTENSIONS OF TIME

v.
Case No. 16-cv-0735-HSG (PR)
J. VANGILDER, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 21, 28

Defendants.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

BENDY A. FALLA,

12
13
14

Case No. 16-cv-0869-HSG (PR)

Plaintiff,
v.
C. DUCART, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,

18
19
20

Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-1320-HSG (PR)
Re: Dkt. No. 18

v.
J. VANGIDLER, et al.,

21

Defendants.

22
23

Case No. 16-cv-1330-HSG (PR)
OSCAR CHAIDEZ,

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff,
v.
J. VANGILDER, et al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 27

1

The order entered on September 27, 2016 is vacated and replaced with the following order:

2

Good cause appearing, the above-referenced cases are related and the Clerk shall reassign

3

case numbers C 16-0869 JST (PR), C 16-1320 MEJ (PR); and C 16-1330 NJV (PR) to the

4

undersigned.
The parties are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear the

5
6

initials of the newly assigned judge (“HSG”) after the case number.
The dispositive motion briefing schedules currently set in Cisneros v. Vangilder, et al., No.

7
8

C 16-0735 HSG (PR) and Chaidez v. Vangilder, et al., No. C 16-1330 NJV (PR) are VACATED.

9

The Court will set a new briefing schedule after the operative complaints in Falla v. Ducart, et al.,
No. C 16-0869 JST (PR) and Manriquez v. Vangilder, et al., No. C 16-1320 MEJ (PR) are

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

screened and served.
Defendants’ motion to consolidate the cases for all purposes is DENIED without prejudice.

12
13

Although the cases involve common questions of law and/or fact, they do not present identical

14

claims. Further, as noted above, two of the cases have not yet been screened and thus are at

15

different stages of litigation. Finally, given that the cases were separately brought by four

16

different inmates, all proceeding pro se, consolidation poses a risk of confusion to plaintiffs. The

17

relation of the cases avoids the possibility of conflicting decisions and serves the interest of

18

judicial economy, and the Court intends to set the same dispositive motion deadline for all four

19

cases. Any further benefit from consolidation would be minimal. Accordingly, there will be no

20

lead case, and the cases shall continue to proceed under their separate case numbers. Should the

21

circumstances of the cases materially change, defendants’ may re-file their motion to consolidate.

22

Plaintiff Manriquez’s application for an extension of time to oppose defendants’ motion to

23

consolidate is DENIED as moot.
Good cause appearing, plaintiff Chaidez’s application for a 30-day extension of time to

24
25

make corrections to his deposition transcript is GRANTED.

26

//

27

//

28

//
2

1
2
3
4

This order terminates Docket Nos. 21 and 28 in Case No. C 16-cv-0735, Docket No. 18 in
Case No. C 16-cv-1320, and Docket No. 27 in Case No. C 16-cv-1330.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 19, 2016

5
6
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3