Gaskill v. NH State Prison
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 19 Motion to Consolidate Cases. 11-cv-381-SM and 11-fp-484 are consolidated into the instant case, 11-cv-274-SM. 11-cv-381-SM, Gaskill v. Houston, et al. and 11-fp-484, Gaskill v. C .O. Azzara, et al. are statistically closed. Gaskill's requests for subpoenas are denied as premature, without prejudice to renewal should an evidentiary hearing be scheduled in this action. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(jab)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Michael D. Gaskill
Civil No. 11-cv-274-SM
New Hampshire State Prison et al.
Michael D. Gaskill
Civil No. 11-cv-381-SM
Lee Houston et al.
Michael D. Gaskill
Civil No. 11-fp-484
C.O. Azzara et al.
O R D E R
Michael Gaskill has filed motions in each of the abovecaptioned cases seeking to consolidate this action into a single
The motions also request subpoenas for two witnesses
should this case go to trial.
In both Gaskill v. New Hampshire State Prison, 11-cv-274-SM
(the “NHSP case”) and Gaskill v. Houston, 11-cv-381-SM (the
“Houston case”), Gaskill seeks to consolidate these cases with
each other and with a third case, Gaskill v. Daly, 11-cv-380-PB
(the “Daly case”).
The Daly case was dismissed on October 12,
2011 (Daly case doc. no. 12).
Since filing consolidation motions in the NHSP case and the
Houston case, Gaskill has filed a complaint in a fourth case,
Gaskill v. Azzara, 11-fp-484 (the “Azzara case”).
case has not yet been opened as Gaskill has not yet been granted
in forma pauperis status or paid the filing fee.
Gaskill has filed a motion to consolidate in the Azzara case
(Azzara case doc. no. 4), seeking to consolidate that matter
with the three previously filed cases identified above.
Having reviewed each of the cases Gaskill seeks to
consolidate, the court finds that the claims asserted in the
Houston case and the Azzara case have been raised in the NHSP
case, and the complaint documents filed in the Houston case and
Azzara case do not state additional claims, but instead
supplement the claims in the NHSP case.
Accordingly, the court
finds that the NHSP case, Houston case, and Azzara case should
be treated as a single case, for all purposes.
See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 42(a)(2) (authorizing consolidation of actions involving a
common question of law or fact); United States District Court
for the District of New Hampshire Local Rule (“LR”) 42.1.
The motions to consolidate filed in each of those cases
(NHSP case doc. no. 19; Houston case doc. no. 12; Azzara case
doc. no. 4) are each granted in part and denied in part.
motion to consolidate is denied to the extent that it seeks
consolidation with the Daly case, as that case is closed.
motions are granted to the extent that they seek to consolidate
the NHSP case, the Houston case, and the Azzara case into a
Gaskill seeks to subpoena two individuals to testify on his
behalf in the trial in this matter.
Because no trial or other
evidentiary hearing is scheduled, Gaskill’s requests for
subpoenas are denied as premature, without prejudice to renewal
should an evidentiary hearing be scheduled in this action.
As explained herein, the motions to consolidate1 and
subpoena witnesses in the NHSP case (doc. no. 19), the Houston
Gaskill’s consolidation motions contain some discussion of
the substantive claims asserted in Gaskill’s complaint
documents. The only relief sought in the motion, however,
concerns consolidation and subpoenas. To the extent Gaskill
intended to seek any other relief, he must do so by filing a
separate motion in the consolidated NHSP case.
case (doc. no. 12), and the Azzara case (doc. no. 4) are granted
in part and denied in part.
The court hereby directs:
The clerk’s office shall consolidate the Houston case
into the NHSP case, for all purposes.
Civil case number 11-cv-
274-SM is considered to be the main case.
consolidated cases shall be considered as one case and all
pleadings will be filed in and captioned with Case No. 11-cv274-SM.
So that Gaskill will not be assessed two filing fees
for the consolidated action, the court hereby revokes the order
setting a payment schedule on Gaskill’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis in the Houston case, Civil No. 11-cv-381-SM (doc.
no. 8), and voids the prisoner consent provided by plaintiff,
filed in the Houston case on August 26, 2011 (doc. no. 9).
Plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis in the consolidated
case, paying the filing fee on the schedule set by the in forma
pauperis order issued in the NHSP case, Civil No. 11-cv-274-SM
(doc. no. 4), in accordance with the prisoner consent form filed
in that case (doc. no. 6).
The clerk’s office shall notify the
inmate account department at the NHSP regarding this change in
the plaintiff’s financial obligations.
All monies paid to date
in the Houston case will be credited toward the filing fee in
the NHSP case.
The clerk’s office is further directed to redocket the
Houston case documents numbered 1, 6, and 11, as addenda to the
complaint in the NHSP case, assign them individual document
numbers in the consolidated NHSP case, and refile them as of the
date of this Order;
The clerk’s office shall redocket Azzara case document
number 1 as an addendum to the complaint in the NHSP case,
assign it an individual document number in the consolidated NHSP
case, and refile it as of the date of this Order.
The clerk’s office shall administratively close the
Houston case, and the Azzara case shall not be opened as a
separate civil action.2
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: February 2, 2012
cc: Michael D. Gaskill, pro se
The Azzara case was never opened as a civil case. Gaskill
failed to submit a filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis as directed in that action. Because the court finds
that the complaint filed in the Azzara case is more
appropriately construed as an addendum to the NHSP case
complaint, the Azzara case will not be opened as a civil case,
and no filing fee will be assessed.
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?