McReaken et al v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 107

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES: Case Numbers 21-cv-00584 and 25-cv-00059 are hereby CONSOLIDATED with Case Number 21-cv-00584 designated as the lead case. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file a copy of this Order in both cases; however, all future filin gs shall be made only in Case Number 21-cv-00584. The Court's Orders setting trial for May 5, 2025, and other deadlines for pretrial motions remain in effect for the consolidated case. See Case Number 21-cv-00584 (Doc. 106); see Case Number 25-cv-00059 (Doc. 24). Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 3/6/2025. (bdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SCOTT McREAKEN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 21-CV-00584-SPM

NEIL KELLERMAN, LUKE HICKS,
KEITH HUBLER, BRADLEY
DEDECKER and DEREK
CLELAND,
Defendants.
ANTHONY TOLIVER,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 25-CV-00059-SPM

NEIL KELLERMAN, LUKE HICKS,
KEITH HUBLER and BRADLEY
DEDECKER,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
McGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for the purposes of docket management.
Plaintiffs Scott McReaken and Anthony Toliver, both inmates at the Illinois
Department

of

Corrections

housed

at

Pinckneyville

Correctional

Center

(“Pinckneyville”) during the relevant times, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for alleged violations of their constitutional rights for excessive force and failure
to intervene, occurring in separate incidents during their stay at Pinckneyville.
Page 1 of 5

McReaken (Doc. 1); Toliver (Doc. 1). On September 26, 2024, this Court partially
granted summary judgment and dismissed Toliver’s claims against Defendant Derek
Cleland. See Toliver (Doc. 8). On October 16, 2024, this case was set for a January 13,
2025, jury trial. See McReaken (Doc. 58). On November 1, 2024, the Defendants filed
a Motion for Separate Trials. McReaken (Doc. 67); Toliver (Doc. 9). This Court granted
Defendants’ Motion on December 6, 2024. McReaken (Doc. 82); Toliver (Doc. 11). This
Court subsequently severed the cases sua sponte in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 21: McReaken v. Kellerman et al., Case No. 21-cv-00584-SPM and
Toliver v. Kellerman et al, Case No. 25-cv-00059-SPM. McReaken (Doc. 92); Toliver
(Doc. 1). Following this decision, Plaintiffs both filed a Motion to Consolidate Trials
on January 28, 2025. McReaken (Doc. 100), Toliver (Doc. 18). This Court heard
arguments on the Motions on February 21, 2025, McReaken (Doc. 104), Toliver (Doc.
23), and granted the Motions for the two cases to be tried together on February 25,
2025. McReaken (Doc. 105), Toliver (Doc. 24).
This Court has carefully considered the issues raised by the parties in its
decision to try McReaken’s and Toliver’s cases together. McReaken (Doc. 105), Toliver
(Doc. 24). In light of the arguments raised in Plaintiff’s Motions for Consolidation of
Trials and further development of the facts raised at Oral Argument for that matter,
the Court believed that the interests of justice were best served by ordering the two
cases to be tried together. McReaken (Doc. 105), Toliver (Doc. 24). This Court has
acknowledged on more than one occasion that McReaken’s and Toliver’s claims of
alleged violations of their constitutional rights for excessive force and failure to

Page 2 of 5

intervene arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences and may raise
common questions of law or fact, thus satisfying the requirements for joinder
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. McReaken (see Doc. 82, p. 2; Doc.
105); Toliver (see Doc. 11, p. 2; Doc. 24).
Even where the requirements for permissive joinder are satisfied, a district
court may turn to other Rules to manage a multi-plaintiff case. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 42(a) permits the court to “join for hearing or trial any or all matters at
issue in the actions” as well as “consolidate the actions.” See also Connecticut Gen.
Life Ins. Co. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 210 F.3d 771, 774 (7th Cir. 2000). A district
court “enjoy[s] substantial discretion in deciding whether and to what extent to
consolidate cases.” Hall v. Hall, 584 U.S. 59, 77 (2018). A court may consider such
factors as whether consolidation may deprive a party of any substantial rights which
it might have possessed had the actions proceeded separately, and the prejudice that
may be present to one or more parties. Reedus v. McDonough, No. 1:21-CV-00357HAB-SLC, 2022 WL 621036, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 3, 2022) (citing Hall, 584 U.S. at
76).
For the same reasons this Court has decided to try the claims together, this
Court believes that the interests of justice, the particular facts of this case, and the
interests of judicial economy and case management favor consolidating McReaken’s
and Toliver’s cases into one case. Plaintiffs allege that the incidents giving rise to
their claims took place within the same working shift as one another, in the same
location, and involve some overlapping key players. See McReaken (Doc. 100, p. 2);

Page 3 of 5

Toliver (See Doc. 18, p. 2). Further, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants’ actions
proceeding the alleged incidences were done in concert in an effort to cover up the
alleged incidences. See McReaken (Doc. 100, p. 3); See Toliver (Doc. 18, p. 3). While
Defendants argue that the potential for prejudice to the jury is great, this Court
believes that issues of admissibility of evidence and other procedural safeguards
available during trial will best protect the interests of fairness and justice to both
parties.
DISPOSITION
For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby CONSOLIDATES McReaken
v. Kellerman et al., Case No. 21-cv-00584-SPM and Toliver v. Kellerman et al, Case
No. 25-cv-00059-SPM. All future filings shall bear the consolidated caption used in
this order and shall be filed only in McReaken v. Kellerman et al., Case No. 21-cv00584-SPM. The Court will strike any filings in Case No. 25-cv-00059-SPM
subsequent to this Order. The Order setting trial for May 5, 2025, at 9:00am and
other deadlines for pre-trial motions remain in effect for the consolidated case. (See
Doc. 106).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CONSOLIDATE these cases and to file
a copy of this Order in both cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 6, 2025
s/ Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. McGLYNN

Page 4 of 5

U.S. District Judge

Page 5 of 5