WEINSTEIN v. UNITED STATES
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 4/11/2018. (mmh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CLERlf . t1
CIV. ACTION NO. 18-0894(AET)
CIV. ACTION NO. 18-5575(AET)
THOMPSON, U.S. District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Eliyahu Weinstein's motion to
consolidate his motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. No. 18-0894, Docket Entry 30. Respondent
United States consents to the motion. For the reasons discussed below, the above-named actions
will be consolidated into one action.
Petitioner filed a motion under § 2255 on January 22, 2018 challenging two
judgments of conviction entered in the District of New Jersey: United States v. Weinstein, No. 11cr-701 (D.N.J.) and United States v. Weinstein, No. 14-cr-219 (D.N.J.).
On March 13, 2018, this Court dismissed the motion without prejudice "[a] moving
party who seeks relief from more than one judgment must file a separate motion covering each
judgment." 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Rule 2(d). Dismissal Opinion and Order, Docket Entries 24 & 25.
The Court tolled the statute of limitations for 30 days and permitted Petitioner to
resubmit separate§ 2255 proceedings. Id.
In compliance with that Order, Petitioner submitted an amended motion in Civil
Action 18-0894 challenging the judgment of conviction entered in United States v. Weinstein, No.
11-cr-701 (D.N.J.) (Weinstein I). Amended Motion, Docket Entry 29. He also filed a new
proceeding under Civil Action 18-5575 challenging the judgment of conviction entered in United
States v. Weinstein, No. 14-cr-219 (D.N.J.) (Weinstein II).
Petitioner now moves to consolidate those actions for purposes of proceeding.
Docket Entry 30.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the
(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)(l)-(3).
"Consolidation is appropriate in order to avoid unnecessary costs and/or delay, and
to promote judicial economy." Liberty Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Mktg. Corp., 149 F.R.D. 65,
80-81 (D .N .J. 1993) (internal citations omitted). Courts should balance the savings of time and
effort against the inconvenience, delay or expense that might result "from simultaneous disposition
of the separate actions." Id at 81.
Specific factors to consider in consolidation are risk of possible confusion, risk of
inconsistent adjudications of common issues of law and fact, burden on parties and witnesses,
length of time required and relative expense. A.F.IK. Holding SPRL v. Fass, 216 F.R.D. 567, 570
(D.N.J. 2003) (citing In re Consolidated Parlodel Litig., 182 F.R.D. 441, 444 (D.N.J. 1998)).
The Court finds that consolidation is warranted in these matters. The claims raised
by Petitioner in his § 2255 motions involve common facts. Moreover, Petitioner argues "but for
the ineffective assistance of plea counsel in Weinstein I, the subsequent prosecution in Weinstein
II would not have occurred (or it would have been incorporated into the resolution of Weinstein
!)."Motion at 2.
Consolidation will prevent unnecessary duplicative pleadings and reduce the
burdens on the parties and the Court.
For the reasons stated above, Civil Actions 18-0894 and 18-5575 shall be
consolidated for all purposes. ,
An a propriate order follows.
ANNE E. THOMPSON ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?