Cushenberry v. LeBlanc et al

Filing 120

ORDER denying 86 MOTION to Incorporate. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 8/30/2019. (KAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LEONARDO CUSHENBERRY (#297345)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-402-BAJ-EWD

JAMES LeBLANC, ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court is a “Motion to Incorporate,” 1 which seeks consolidation of the instant
matter with Lewis v. Cain, 2 a class action pending before this Court. A bench trial in Lewis v. Cain
concluded on October 25, 2018. 3 At the conclusion of trial, the parties were ordered to schedule
a mediation, 4 which was conducted on July 24, 2019. 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42
provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “If actions before the court involve a common question of
law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions….”
The trial in Lewis v. Cain has already taken place. Thus, Plaintiff’s action cannot be consolidated
into Lewis v. Cain, as it has, for all intents and purposes, concluded, and allowing consolidation of
this action with Lewis v. Cain would cause unnecessary cost and delay, which is contrary to the
purpose of Rule 42. 6 Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Incorporate 7 be and is hereby DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 30, 2019.

S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1

R. Doc. 86.
Civil Action No. 15-318 (M.D. La.).
3
Id. at R. Doc. 536.
4
Id. at R. Doc. 536.
5
Id. at R. Doc. 562.
6
Rule 42 further provides that actions may be consolidated “to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” To the extent
Plaintiff seeks to be a member of the class defined in Lewis v. Cain, he already is. The Class includes “all inmates
who now, or will be in the future, incarcerated at LSP.” Since Plaintiff is incarcerated at LSP, he is already included
in the class defined in Lewis v. Cain. See Lewis v. Cain, Civil Action No. 15-318 (M.D. La.) at R. Doc. 394, p. 30.
7
R. Doc. 86.
2