Wiideman v. Homan, et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. IT IS ORDERED, the Clerk shall detach and FILE the complaint (docket 1 -2). FURTHER ORDERED this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff's 7 motion to join case is DENIED. FURTHER OR DERED the Clerk shall file a copy of this order in WIIDEMAN V. MCDANIEL, ET AL., 3:09-cv-00650-LRH-VPC. FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 9/7/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

Wiideman v. Homan, et al

Doc. 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This is a prisoner civil rights action. Plaintiff is incarcerated at Ely State Prison ("ESP") and has sued mailroom officer David Homan. Plaintiff alleges that defendant has refused to deliver mail that complies with prison regulations to plaintiff in retaliation for plaintiff filing suit in Wiideman v. McDaniel, et al., 3:09-cv-00650-LRH-VPC. Plaintiff's allegations in this action directly relate to his claims in Wiideman v. McDaniel, which has already been consolidated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 with three other actions filed by plaintiff. (See Wiideman v. McDaniel, et al., 3:09-cv-00650-LRH-VPC, docket #9). In fact, in the instant case, plaintiff has filed a "motion to join case with Wiideman v. Homan, et al., 3:10-cv-00496vs. DAVID HOMAN, et al., Defendants. RANDAL N. WIIDEMAN, #22306 Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) /

3:10-cv-00379-ECR-VPC ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

LRH-RAM" (docket #7), which is yet another action setting forth common questions of law or fact.1 In all of these actions, plaintiff sets forth various claims that mail room personnel have refused to deliver incoming mail to plaintiff, process outgoing mail by plaintiff and otherwise interfere with plaintiff's mail. In the interest of conserving the court's and the parties' resources, these related claims must all be brought in the same action. Accordingly, this action is dismissed. Plaintiff may, if he chooses, seek to amend his complaint in Wiideman v. McDaniel, et al., 3:09-cv-00650-LRH-VPC to include all of his claims related to this alleged mail room dispute. Plaintiff is cautioned that any further separate actions he attempts to file alleging any related claims will be dismissed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall detach and FILE the complaint (docket #1-2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to join case (docket #7) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file a copy of this order in WIIDEMAN V. MCDANIEL, ET AL., 3:09-cv-00650-LRH-VPC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. DATED this 7th day of September, 2010.

20 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 Confusingly, in Wiideman v. Homan, et al., in 3:10-cv-00496 ("Homan II"), plaintiff indicates that he will seek to consolidate that matter with Wiideman v. McDaniel, et al., 3:09-cv-00650-LRH-VPC. (See Homan II, 3:10-cv-00496-LRH-RAM, docket #1-2). 2
1