Hesed-El v. City of Augusta-Richmond County et al

Filing 5

ORDER that Plaintiff shall have ten days from the date of this Order to notify the Court whether he intended to file two separate cases and pay two $400.00 filing fees. Should Plaintiff fail to respond to this Order, (1) the Court will presume P laintiff did not intend to open a new case; (2) case number CV 117-146 will proceed in the normal course of business and the complaint filed in CV 117-165 will be re-docketed in CV 117-146 as an amended complaint; and (3) case number CV 117-165 will be dismissed. Compliance due by 12/14/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 12/04/2017. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
BRO T. HESED-EL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
COURTNEY MCCORD; DUSTIN
)
BURDICK; BRANDEN JAMES GLOVER; )
and RICHARD ROUNDTREE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_
_
_
_
_
_
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
CITY OF AUGUSTA-RICHMOND
)
COUNTY; WILLIAM D. JENNINGS, III;
)
VICKIE W. HESTER; and JANICE ALLEN )
JACKSON,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________

CV 117-146

BRO T. HESED-EL, and all other persons
similarly situated,

CV 117-165

ORDER
_________
On November 17, 2017, Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint brought pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding his arrest in Richmond County, Georgia. Bro T. Hesed-El v.
McCord, et al., CV 117-146, doc. no. 12 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 17, 2017). A week and a half later,

on November 29, 2017, Plaintiff submitted another complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1986 also regarding his arrest. Bro T. Hesed-El v. City of Augusta-Richmond County, et
al., CV 117-165, doc. no. 1 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 29, 2017).
Although the complaints contain different defendants, both complaints contain similar
claims that the arrest warrant obtained to secure his arrest was unconstitutional and void.
Compare CV 117-146, doc. no. 12, pp. 3-5, with CV 117-165, doc. no. 1, pp. 4, 6-8.
Therefore, it appears Plaintiff may have intended to simply file an amended complaint in
case number CV 117-165. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall have ten days from the date of this
Order to notify the Court whether he intended to file two separate cases and pay two $400.00
filing fees. Should Plaintiff fail to respond to this Order, (1) the Court will presume Plaintiff
did not intend to open a new case; (2) case number CV 117-146 will proceed in the normal
course of business and the complaint filed in CV 117-165 will be re-docketed in CV 117-146
as an amended complaint; and (3) case number CV 117-165 will be dismissed.
Finally, in his complaint in CV 117-165, Plaintiff claims to “withhold consent”
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and therefore “[n]o U.S. Magistrate may participate herein.” CV
117-165, doc. no. 1, p. 1. Under Local Rule 72, Magistrate Judges are authorized to perform
the duties prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(a) and (b)(1)(A). Loc. R. 72.1, 72.2. Under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), magistrate judges may “hear and determine any pretrial matter
pending before the court” with the exception of various dispositive motions and motions for
injunctive relief. Moreover, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), a district judge may “designate
a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a
judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a
judge of the court, of any motion” he cannot determine under § 636(b)(1)(A). Therefore,
2

Plaintiff’s consent is not required for the undersigned to participate in the proceedings within
the confines of 28 U.S.C. § 636.
SO ORDERED this 4th day of December, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.

3