GHOLSTON v. HUMPHREY

Filing 29

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Consolidate Cases Lead Case # 5:12-CV-97-MTT-MSH. Member Case # 5:12-CV-107-MTT-MSH, 5:12-CV-109-MTT-MSH, 5:12-CV-118-MTT-MSH, 5:12-CV-119-MTT-MSH, 5:12-CV-130-WLS-MSH, 5:12-CV-135-CAR-MSH, 5:12-CV-108-MTT-MSH, 5:12-CV-124-MTT-MSH, 5:12-CV-128-MTT-MSH, 5:12-CV-136-CAR-MSH, 5:12-CV-289-MTT-MSH.; adopting Report and Recommendations re 12 Report and Recommendations.Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 11/01/12 (ans)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DEANTE GHOLSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARL HUMPHREY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-97 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles’
Recommendation (Doc. 12) on Plaintiff Deante Gholston’s Motion to Certify a Class (Doc.
10). Judge Hyles recommends denying the class certification and, instead, consolidating
the cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). Gholston has objected to the
Recommendation. (Doc. 13). Christopher Mobley, a plaintiff from one of the cases
Gholston included in his Motion, has also objected to the Recommendation. (Doc. 14).
Gholston moved to certify his suit as class action, asking the Court combine his civil
action with seven other pending cases. However, Gholston failed to articulate why the
cases should be certified as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Judge Hyles determined there were twelve cases1 with identical claims against Warden
Humphrey at the Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison.
1

See Doc. 12 at 2-3 for a full discussion of the cases. Judge Hyles actually determined there were
fourteen similar cases, but he only recommends consolidating twelve of the cases. However, on
October 24, 2012, one of the cases Judge Hyles recommends consolidating, Boston v. Humphrey,
et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-117, was dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, only eleven cases
remain to be consolidated.

Rule 23(a) requires that the class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable,” that there be common questions of law and fact, that the claims or
defenses of the representative be typical of the class, and that the representative party can
adequately protect the interests of the class. Though there appears to be some common
questions of law and fact, none of the other requirements of Rule 23(a) are met. Instead,
Judge Hyles recommends consolidating the cases under Federal Rule of Procedure 42(a).
Rule 42(a) provides for consolidation of actions involving “a common question of law or
fact.” Because Gholston’s Motion for Class Certification was the first filed, he recommends
consolidating the cases under Gholston’s civil case.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and both Objections. In the
Objections, Gholston and Mobley both reiterate their arguments for class certification of
the civil actions. One issue raised by Mobley warrants brief discussion. He argues that he
did not receive notice of the proposed consolidation. Rule 42 does not have a notice
requirement for consolidation; therefore, the fact that Mobley did not receive notice of the
proposed consolidation has no bearing on this Court’s determination.
The Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of
the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation is adopted and made the order of this Court.
Accordingly, the following cases are consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure under this case:
Johnson v. Humphrey, et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-107 (MTT-MSH)
Mobley v. Humphrey, et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-109 (MTT-MSH)
Watkins v. Humphrey, et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-118 (MTT-MSH)
McIver v. Humphrey, et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-119 (MTT-MSH)
Paschal v. Humphrey, et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-130 (WLS-MSH)
Shaw v. Hall, et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-135 (CAR-MSH)
Heard v. Humphrey, Case No. 5:12-cv-108 (MTT-MSH)
Miller v. Humphrey, et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-124 (MTT-MSH)
-2-

Watson v. Humphrey, et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-128 (MTT-MSH)
Lee v. Humphrey, et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-136 (CAR-MSH)
Minor v. Humphrey, et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-289 (MTT-MSH)
(Doc. 12 at 2-3).
SO ORDERED, this 1st day of November, 2012.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-3-