OUTLAW v. DOES
ORDER to consolidate this case into Outlaw v. Owens, 5:16-cv-0456-MTT-CHW and that the present case, 5:16-cv-0462, be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 1/30/2017. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CALVIN GERARD OUTLAW,
JOHN AND OR JANE DOES,
Plaintiff Calvin Gerard Outlaw filed the above-captioned proceeding in this Court
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge the fact of his continued confinement at the Calhoun
County Jail, in Morgan Georgia.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested shortly after completing a
term of incarceration in Kentucky and placed in the custody of the Georgia Department of
Corrections to serve a life sentence imposed as a result of a prior conviction in Houston
County Georgia. Plaintiff believed his Georgia sentence had run concurrently with his
Kentucky sentence and claims that he was released in Kentucky without a hold or detainer.
At the time of the arrest, however, Georgia authorities believed that Plaintiff was a
“fugitive at law” and charged him with “escape.” Plaintiff now claims that the escape
charge is entirely false and that he should neither be confined on this charge nor denied
parole based on false information. Plaintiff’s claims, however, are the same or at least
substantially similar to those claims made by Plaintiff in another §1983 complaint under
review in this Court: Outlaw v. Owens, 5:16-cv-0456-MTT-CHW.
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.”1 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, no. 5:16-cv-0462-MTT-MSH,
be CONSOLIDATED into Outlaw v. Owens, 5:16-cv-0456-MTT-CHW and that the
present case, 5:16-cv-0462, be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.
SO ORDERED, this 30th day of January 2016.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1 “[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. Transportation Comm. Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2nd Cir. 1999) (“A district court can consolidate
related cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) sua sponte.”)).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?