Gillpatrick et al v. Frakes et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 2 Motion to Consolidate Cases; sustaining 16 Objection. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
PAUL GILLPATRICK, and NICCOLE
WETHERELL,
4:18CV3011
Plaintiffs,
ORDER

vs.
SCOTT FRAKES, Director, in his
Official Capacity; et. al;
Defendants.
HAROLD BRYAN WILSON, and RILEY
NICOLE SHADLE,

8:16CV524

Plaintiffs,
ORDER

vs.
JASON GEERDES, in his Official
Capacity; et. al;
Defendants.

Defendants have moved to consolidate the above-captioned cases.
Counsel for Plaintiffs in Gillpatrick et al v. Frakes et al, 4:18-cv-03011-RFR-CRZ
have filed a formal objection. (Filing No. 16).

Michael Gooch represents Plaintiffs in both cases, and both cases are
assigned to Judge Robert Rossiter as the presiding judge, and the undersigned
magistrate judge as the referral judge. In both cases, the plaintiffs who wish to
marry are presently housed in separate facilities, and Plaintiffs are claiming
Defendants’ policies effectively prohibit them from exercising their right to marry

by denying transport for an in-person marriage ceremony while also denying a
marriage ceremony through the use of technology.

But there are factual issues raised in Wilson that are not present in
Gillpatrick. Specifically, Wilson claims he was transferred to a different facility in
retaliation for requesting permission to marry, and he was denied access to a
notary to eliminate his ability to properly sign necessary marriage documents.
And Wilson may not be eligible to marry; that is, he may already be married.
(Filing No. 16-1). Pretrial discovery unique to Wilson will slow the progression of
that case and may moot it altogether.

While the above-captioned lawsuits present overlapping legal issues and
factual issues (e.g, the DOC policies), the case disparities are sufficient to
warrant separate case progression and trials. Defendants’ motions to consolidate
will be denied. That said, as to any discovery of relevant DOC policies and
procedures that may be relevant in both cases, and the depositions of
Defendants or Defendants’ employee witnesses common to both cases, the
parties are encouraged to cooperate in avoiding duplication of time, expense,
and effort in obtaining that discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1)

Plaintiffs’ objection, (Gillpatrick et al v. Frakes et al, 4:18-cv-03011-

RFR-CRZ, Filing No. 16), is sustained.

2

2)

Defendants’ motions to consolidate, (Gillpatrick et al v. Frakes et al,

4:18-cv-03011-RFR-CRZ, Filing No. 2, and Wilson et al v. Geerdes et al, 8:16-cv00524-RFR-CRZ, Filing No. 69), are denied.

March 23, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Cheryl R. Zwart
United States Magistrate Judge

3