Baudoin v. Stogner
ORDER denying without prejudice Defendant's 23 Motion to Dismiss; granting Defendant's 24 Motion to Consolidate Cases; granting Plaintiff's 26 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on February 1, 2012. (Cochran, Ronald)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
STEPHEN ANTHONY BAUDOIN
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv16-KS-MTP
STEPHEN ANTHONY BAUDOIN
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv17-KS-MTP
These matters are before the Court on Defendant’s  Motion to Consolidate.1
Defendant has also filed what has been docketed as a  Motion to Dismiss and in the
Alternative Answer and Affirmative Defenses.2 In addition, Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend
complaint.3 Having considered the submissions of the parties, the entire record in both cases,
and the applicable law, the Court finds that consolidation is appropriate.
These causes of action arise from conditions of confinement at the Marion/Walthall
A motion to consolidate was filed in both Civil Action No. 2:11cv16 (the referenced
docket entry) and Civil Action No. 2:11cv17 (docket entry ). This order will be entered in
Similar motions to dismiss were filed in both Civil Action No. 2:11cv16 (the referenced
docket entry) and Civil Action No. 2:11cv17 (docket entry ). The Answer and Affirmative
Defenses have been separately docketed in No. 2:11cv16 (docket entry ) and in No. 2:11cv17
(docket entry ).
Only in Civil Action No. 2:11cv17 (docket entry ).
County Correctional Facility.4 In Civil Action No. 2:11cv16, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Laura Stogner “took $6.00 off my inmate account” although he did not go to the doctor or nurse
and did not fill out a medical form to see a doctor or nurse. In Civil Action No. 2:11cv17,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Laura Stogner failed to provide him adequate medical treatment
with respect to a T.B. test. Plaintiff’s  Motion to Amend expands upon his claims against
Defendant Stogner in Civil Action No. 2:11cv17. The Complaints were filed on the same day
and these cases are at the same stage of development. Moreover, there are no other named
Consolidation is proper pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), which permits the Court to
consolidate actions involving common issues of law or fact, especially when doing so will avoid
unnecessary costs or delay or will eliminate unnecessary repetition or confusion. Mills v. Beech
Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 761-62 (5th Cir. 1989); Miller v. U.S. Postal Service, 729 F.2d
1033, 1036 (5th Cir. 1984). These cases will utilize many of the same witnesses and records.
Consolidation of these cases will serve to reduce the costs and expenses of all parties.
Likewise, by eliminating duplicate motions on the same issues and eliminating multiple hearings
and trials, consolidation will conserve judicial time and resources.
Defendant’s motions to dismiss referenced above appear to have been filed simply to
preserve defenses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). While affirmative defenses may be enumerated in
the answer, the court will not recognize a motion included within the body of the answer, but
only those raised by a separate filing. See L. U. Civ. R. 7(b)(2)(A) The motions to dismiss and
Plaintiff is currently housed at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution.
the answers and affirmative defenses are identical within each case.5 No briefs were filed in
support of the motions as required by L. U. Civ. R. 7(b)(4).
Finally, Plaintiff’s  Motion to Amend Complaint in Civil Action No. 2:11cv17
merely expands upon his claim in that case and further specifies the damages he seeks.
Plaintiff’s request to so amend will be granted.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant’s  Motion to Consolidate in Civil Action No. 2:11cv16 is GRANTED,
and Defendant’s  Motion to Consolidate in Civil Action No. 2:11cv17 is GRANTED. These
matters are hereby consolidated for all purposes, including trial. All future pleadings and filings
shall be filed only in Civil Action No. 2:11cv16.
Defendant’s  Motion to Dismiss in Civil Action No. 2:11cv16 is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and Defendant’s  Motion to Dismiss in Civil Action No.
2:11cv17 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff’s  Motion to Amend Complaint in Civil Action No. 2:11cv17 is
GRANTED, and the information contained therein will be considered in the disposition of his
SO ORDERED this the 1st day of February, 2012.
s/ Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge
The Court will schedule an omnibus hearing at the appropriate time to address various
case management issues, including discovery and motions.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?