White v. LaSalle Corrections Inc et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Defendants document 20 Motion to Consolidate, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The cases numbered 16-cv-1007 and 16-cv-1405 shall be and hereby are consolidated for pre-trial discovery purposes only. All f urther pleadings shall be filed in 16-cv-1007. Defendants motion to consolidate for trial is DENIED. Defendants may renew their motion to consolidate for trial at the close of discovery, if appropriate. Lead Case Number: 3:16-cv-1007. Member Case Number(s): 3:16-cv-1405. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 03/20/2017. (crt,ThomasSld, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
LARA J. WHITE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF MINOR V R W
JR. AND ON BEHALF OF VERNON
RAMONE WHITE SR. ESTATE

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1405

VERSUS

*

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

LASALLE CORRECTIONS INC. ET
AL.

*

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the undersigned Magistrate Judge is a motion to consolidate, [doc. #20], filed by
Defendants LaSalle Corrections, LLC, Richwood Correctional Center, Lieutenant Ray Hanson,
Lieutenant Gerald Hardwell, Captain Roderick Douglas, and Danielle Walker. The motion is
unopposed. For reasons assigned below, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part.
Background
Defendants’ motion seeks to consolidate this case with Moore v. LaSalle Corrections
Inc., 16-cv-1007 (W.D. La. 2016). Both cases arise out of incidents that occurred at Richwood
Correctional Center (“Richwood”) on October 12 and 13, 2015.
On October 10, 2015, Vernon Ramone White, Sr. was arrested on charges of speeding,
driving without a license, driving without proof of insurance, and contempt of court. White was
then transported to Richwood. On October 12, 2015, Erie Moore, Sr. was arrested for disturbing
the peace and placed in an isolation lockdown cell at Richwood. At first, Moore was alone in the
1

lockdown cell. Around 9:00 p.m. that night, White engaged in a fight with a third inmate named
Erin Daniels. As a result, White was placed in the isolation lockdown cell with Moore. On the
morning of October 13, 2015, Moore and White had a physical altercation and needed medical
attention. Both inmates were then returned to the same lockdown cell. On the night of October
13, 2015, White and Moore engaged in a second fight, resulting in substantial injuries to White.
When the defendant officers discovered White’s injuries, Moore was forcibly removed from the
cell. White was transported to Conway Medical Center in Monroe, Louisiana, and pronounced
dead that night. Meanwhile, while being removed from the lockdown cell, Moore suffered severe
injuries and eventually died approximately one month later on November 14, 2015, at University
Health Center in Shreveport, Louisiana.
On October 6, 2016, Lara J. White, individually and on behalf of her son and on behalf of
her husband’s estate (the “White Plaintiffs”), filed the instant wrongful death and survival action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 against defendants LaSalle Corrections Inc. (“LaSalle”),
Richwood Correctional Center, Warden Ray Hanson, Lieutenant Gerald Hardwell, Corporal
Officer Danielle Walker, Captain Roderick Douglas, and the City of Monroe. [doc. #1] (the
“White Case”).
On July 8, 2016, Plaintiffs Erie Moore, Jr., Tiffany Robinson, and Tamara Robinson (the
“Moore Plaintiffs”) also filed a wrongful death and survival action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
1983 and 1988 against LaSalle, Warden Ray Hanson, Lieutenant Christopher Loring, Lt.
Hardwell, Sergeant Roy Brown, Sergeant Reginald Williams, Sergeant Kenneth Hart, C.O.
Walker, Sergeant Duan Rosenthal, Cpt. Douglas, Corporal Officer Jeremy Runner, Corporal
Reginald Curly, and the City of Monroe. [doc. #1] (the “Moore Case”). Through the instant

2

motion, movants seek to consolidate the White Case with the Moore Case.
Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides,
(a) Consolidation. 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;
(2) consolidate the actions; or
(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
FED . R. CIV . P. 42(a). “Rule 42(a) should be used to expedite trial and eliminate unnecessary
repetition and confusion.” Miller v. U.S. Postal Serv., 729 F.2d 1033, 1036 (5th Cir. 1984).
In weighing consolidation, numerous factors are considered, including
whether the actions are pending before the same court; the actions involve a common
party; any risk of prejudice or confusion will result from consolidation; any risk of
inconsistent adjudications of common factual or legal questions will result if the
matters are tried separately; consolidation will reduce the time and cost of trying the
cases separately; and the cases are at the same stage of preparation for trial.
Varnado v. Leblanc, No. 3:13-00348, 2016 WL 320146, *2 (M.D. La. Jan. 25. 2016). Further,
“[c]onsolidation may be properly denied in instances where the cases are at different stages of
preparedness for trial.” Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., Inc., 886 F.2d 758, 762. “A trial court has
broad discretion in determining whether to consolidate a case pending before it.” Id. (citing Alley
v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 767 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1985)).
These actions clearly involve common questions of law and fact. Both complaints arise
out of the same set of facts: an altercation that occurred between White and Moore in a lockdown
cell at Richwood on October 13, 2015, that ultimately ended with the death of both inmates. The
actions assert almost identical claims for relief: (1) wrongful death pursuant to § 1983; (2) failure
to intervene and supervise; (3) failure to monitor, classify, train and implement policies; (4)
3

failure to classify and protect inmates; (5) failure to train and implement adequate policies; (6)
failure to protect and classify inmates; and (7) state law claims pursuant to Louisiana Civil Code
article 2315. The only difference is that the Moore Plaintiffs assert a cause of action for
excessive force. Moreover, both cases were filed only three months apart and very minimal
discovery has been conducted at this point. See Arnold & Co., LLC v. David K. Young
Consulting, LLC, No. SA-13-CV-00246, 2013 WL 1411773, *2 (W.D. Tex. April 8, 2013). At a
minimum, consolidation for discovery on liability issues will be more cost effective and time
efficient, considering the White Plaintiffs are suing seven defendants, six of which are
defendants in the Moore case.
However, the Court finds that consolidation for trial is inappropriate at this juncture.
Consolidation is improper if it aligns parties who have conflicting interests in the litigation. As
of yet, the White Plaintiffs are not presently suing Moore or his succession, suggesting that a
conflict of interest is not present. Compare Atkinson v. Roth, 297 F.2d 570 (3d Cir. 1961)
(consolidation resulted in conflict and prejudice where it would make one plaintiff both a
plaintiff and a defendant). However, the complaints in both cases assert that White got in a fight
with a third inmate before being placed in the lockdown cell with Moore. The Moore complaint
asserts that White “was found to be the perpetrator and was given a disciplinary sanction” for the
fight. [doc. #1, ¶ 12]. The Moore Plaintiffs argue that, “[a]t the time of placement of Vernon
White, correctional officers knew or should have known that Vernon White was violent.” Id. The
White Plaintiffs, on the other hand, allege that Moore was the violent one, and paint a very

4

unsettling picture of Moore in their complaint.1 These conflicting allegations could peg the
Plaintiffs against each other at trial. For example, to rebut Moore’s excessive force claim,
Defendants may bring in evidence that Moore was violent, therefore rendering the use of
excessive force reasonable under the circumstances. Moore could then rebut that inference by
bringing in evidence that White was the initial aggressor, which would then require White to
bring forth evidence that Moore was violent.
Therefore, the Court finds, at this time, that the cases should be consolidated for pre-trial
discovery purposes only. While there may be considerable overlap in the two actions, it is too
early to determine whether the consolidation would result in a conflict of interest and resulting
prejudice. See Wells v. Robinson Helicopter Co., 2013 WL 11836758, *2 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 15,
2013) (consolidating for discovery only); Blasko v. Wa. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
243 F.R.D. 13, 16 (D. D.C. 2007) (consolidating for discovery, but not trial, at the present time).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to consolidate, [doc. #20], is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part. The cases numbered 16-cv-1007 and 16-cv-1405 shall be and hereby
are consolidated for pre-trial discovery purposes only. All further pleadings shall be filed in
16-cv-1007. Defendants’ motion to consolidate for trial is DENIED. Defendants may renew their

1

The White Plaintiffs pleaded that Moore can be seen on video gesticulating wildly,
pointing and pacing. [doc. #1, ¶ 18]. They pleaded that White began banging on the cell door,
but that Moore embraced him and pulled him back. Id. ¶ 19. Moore allegedly placed White
against the wall, put his hands around White’s neck, and drew back his right arm and made a fist.
Id. ¶ 20. Moore allegedly shoved and yelled at White on several occasions, grabbed him by the
neck, and pushed him against the wall. Id. ¶ ¶ 22-23. After White is allegedly beaten off-camera
and his body lies lifeless on the ground, Moore is allegedly seen eating and going to the
restroom. ¶¶ 25-28.
5

motion to consolidate for trial at the close of discovery, if appropriate.
In Chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 20th day of March 2017.

__________________________________
KAREN L. HAYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6