Moon v. Harris et al

Filing 4

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASE. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to: file all pleadings docketed in Case Number 5:17-cv-118 upon the docket and record of Case Number 5:17-cv-122; CONSOLIDATE case Number 5:17-cv-118 and 5:17-cv-122; and CLOSE Case Number 5:17-cv-118. In consolidating the Complaint, the Clerk should consolidate the Defendants listed on the case dockets and only list each Defendant once on the consolidated case docket. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 10/23/2017. (csr)

Iftt tl^e QSntteb
Jdisitrtct Contt
:lfor t^t ^oittl^eni I9tfi(trttt of 4S>eorgta
Wa^misi IBtiitscton
JAMES TERRY MOON, JR.,

Plaintiff,
V.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:17-cv-118

SERGEANT HARRIS, et al..
Defendants.

JAMES TERRY MOON, JR.,

Plaintiff,
V.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:17-cv-122

MR. HARRIS, et al..
Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff, who is currently housed at Smith State Prison in
Glennville, Georgia, filed the two above-captioned causes of
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.

From a

review of

Plaintiff's Complaints, it appears he makes virtually identical
allegations in both actions.

Accordingly, for the reasons and

in the manner set forth below, these actions are hereby
CONSOLIDATED.

A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed Case Number 5:17-cv-118, on September 5,

2017.

Dkt. No. 1.

June 30,

2017,

In that Complaint,

Plaintiff alleges that on

he was robbed by ten fellow inmates who are

members of a gang.

Id. at p. 4.

The inmates robbed Plaintiff

of contraband including a cell phone.

Id.

Plaintiff contends

these inmates threatened him with future harm,

Sergeant Harris of the robbery and the threats.

and he notified

Id. at p. 5.

Plaintiff maintains that Sergeant Harris then notified
Lieutenant Domini of the incident,

and that Domini placed

Plaintiff in isolation and refused Plaintiff's request for
protective custody.

Id. at pp.

5-6.

He contends that after

this incident, other officers and prison administrators have
denied his request to be placed in protective custody and that
he has remained in disciplinary segregation without a hearing.
Id. at pp.

7-8.

Plaintiff filed Case Number 5:17-cv-122, on September 15,
2017.

Dkt. No.

1.

In that Complaint,

Plaintiff reasserts,

albeit with less detail, the allegations regarding his attack by
gang members, prison officials'

refusal to place him in

protective custody, and his continued detention in

administrative segregation.

Id.

He requests that the Court

order that he be placed in protective custody.

Id. at p. 5.

As

in Case Number 5:17-cv-118,

Plaintiff has moved to proceed in

forma pauperis in Case Number 5:17-cv-122.

Dkt. No. 2.

DISCUSSION

A district court has authority to consolidate multiple

actions if they ^'involve a common question of law or fact."
Fed. R. Civ.

P.

42 (a).

Consolidation under Rule 42 (a)

^^is

permissive and vests a purely discretionary power in the
district court."

Young v. City of Augusta,

(11th Cir. 1995)

59 F.3d 1160, 1168

(internal quotes omitted).

In exercising that

discretion, district courts must weigh the risk of prejudice and
confusion wrought by consolidation against the risk of

inconsistent rulings on common factual and legal questions; the

burden on the parties and the Court posed by multiple lawsuits
as opposed to one; the length of time required to conclude

multiple lawsuits as opposed to one; and the relative expense of
proceeding with separate lawsuits if they are not consolidated.
Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan,
Cir. 1985) .

Inc.,

776 F.2d 1492, 1495

(11th

'''District courts in this circuit have been urged to

make good use of Rule 42(a)

. . . in order to expedite the trial

and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion."
F.3d at 1169 (internal quotes omitted).

Young, 59

The decision of whether

to consolidate "is entirely within the discretion of the
district court as it seeks to promote the administration of

justice."

Gentry v. Smith, 487 F.2d 571, 581

(5th Cir. 1973).

In the cases at hand. Plaintiff sets forth allegations that
are related to each other and that involve common questions of

law and fact.

His two Complaints name the same individuals as

Defendants, center on the same facts, and request essentially
the same relief.

Therefore,

consolidation is warranted to

prevent inconsistent rulings on common questions of law and fact
and to avoid the inefficiency of duplicative litigation.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court exercises its
discretion to consolidate these actions.

Accordingly, the Clerk

of Court is DIRECTED to: file all pleadings docketed in Case

Number 5:17-cv-118 upon the docket and record of Case Number
5:17-CV-122; CONSOLIDATE Case Numbers 5:17-cv-118 and 5:17-cv-

122; and CLOSE Case Number 5:17-cv-118.

In consolidating the

Complaint, the Clerk should consolidate the Defendants listed on
the case dockets and only list each Defendant once on the
consolidated case docket.^
The Court DISMISSES AS MOOT the Motion for Leave to Proceed

in Forma Pauperis in Case Number 5:17-cv-118.
consolidation on the record,

Following

the United States Magistrate Judge

will review the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
filed in Case Number 5:17-cv-122 and will conduct the requisite

^ For example, the docket in Case Number 5:17-cv-118 lists ^^Sergeant
FNU Harris" as a

Defendant and the docket in Case Number 5:17-cv-122

lists ^^Mr. Harris" as a Defendant.
Upon consolidation. Defendant
Harris need only be listed once on the docket as an active Defendant

frivolity review of Plaintiff s allegations and assess whether
Defendants should be served with the Complaint,

SO ORDERED, this

day of _

HON

)e(/'

LISA GODBEY WOOD,

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

t 2017.

JUDGE
COURT

SOUT^^RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA