JAMES v. MACK et al

Filing 5

ORDER: It is ORDERED that this case, 5:16-CV-29-CAR-CHW, be CONSOLIDATED into James v. Massee, 5:15-CV-35-MTT-MSH, and that the present case, 5:16-CV-29-CAR-CHW, be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 2/17/2016. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
SAMSON EUGENE JAMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
Doctor MACK, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-29-CAR-CHW

ORDER
Plaintiff Samson Eugene James has filed a pro se complaint seeking relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated
his constitutional rights by failing to “call police” to conduct an investigation after he was
raped; placing him in segregation without food; and allowing an officer to pepper spray
him without just cause. (Compl. 5, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has, however, already initiated
another lawsuit making similar allegations against each of the Defendants.1 This action
therefore involves the same parties and brings claims that appear to be closely related (if
not identical) to those alleged in Plaintiff’s pending lawsuit.

1

In that case, Plaintiff was ultimately ordered to recast his claims against Defendants
Mack and Nurse Michelle. See James v. Massee, Order, ECF No. 47 in Case No. 5:15CV-00035-MTT-MSH (M.D. Ga. Dec. 22, 2015). It may be that the complaint in this
case is Plaintiff’s effort to comply with the Court’s order to recast. In addition, the
claims against Defendant Massee were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a
claim in the earlier-filed case, and the claims against Defendants Reeves and Neff were
permitted to proceed for further factual development. See James v. Massee, Order &
Recommendation 6, ECF No. 22 in Case No. 5:15-CV-00035-MTT-MSH (M.D. Ga. July
13, 2015); James v. Massee, Order 1, ECF No. 33 in Case No. 5:15-CV-00035-MTTMSH (M.D. Ga. Oct. 2, 2015) (adopting Order and Recommendation).

Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes this Court to
consolidate actions that “involve a common question of law or fact.”2 Consolidation of
Plaintiff’s cases will conserve judicial resources and permit the efficient resolution of
Plaintiff’s claims. It is therefore ORDERED that this case, 5:16-CV-29-CAR-CHW, be
CONSOLIDATED into James v. Massee, 5:15-CV-35-MTT-MSH, and that the present
case, 5:16-CV-29-CAR-CHW, be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of February, 2016.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

“[T]he lack of any Rule 42(a) motion from any party in either of the two cases is no
impediment to consolidation if the relevant considerations warrant same.” Chambers v.
Cooney, No. 07-0373-WS-B, 2007 WL 3287364, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 2, 2007) (citing
Devlin v. Transp. Comm. Int’l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999) (“A district court
can consolidate related cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) sua sponte.”)).
2