LYTTLE v. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Filing 43

NOTICE by Dean Caputo, Dashanta Faucette, Robert Kendall, The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of decision by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit- Order Denying Transfer) (Whitman, James) Modified on 5/25/2011 to name exhibit attachment. (Jenkins, C.)

Case MDL No. 2227 Document 29 Filed 04/08/11 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: MARK DANIEL LYTTLE LITIGATION
Mark Daniel Lyttle v. The United States of America, et al.,
N.D. Georgia, C.A. No. 1:10-03302
Mark Daniel Lyttle v. The United States of America, et al.,
E.D. North Carolina, C.A. No. 4:10-00142

)
)
)
)

MDL No. 2227

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel: Federal defendants1 have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize
this litigation in the Eastern District of North Carolina or, alternatively, the Middle District of Georgia.
This litigation currently consists of two actions pending, respectively, in the Eastern District of North
Carolina and the Northern District of Georgia.
Defendant North Carolina Department of Correction supports centralization in the Eastern
District of North Carolina. Plaintiff in both actions and defendant in the Northern District of Georgia
action, Corrections Corp. of America, oppose centralization. If the Panel is inclined to centralize the
actions, plaintiff alternatively suggests centralization in the Northern District of Georgia
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we are not persuaded that Section 1407
centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These two actions are brought by the same plaintiff and involve certain
common background questions of fact surrounding, inter alia, plaintiff’s detention, his alleged mistaken
identification as a Mexican national, his subsequent deportation, injuries he suffered abroad and his
ultimate return to this country. At oral argument, defendants stressed that some of those same
background facts may form the basis of the various defendants’ assertions of qualified immunity.
Additional common questions of fact can be expected to arise concerning what plaintiff contends are
governmental policies, patterns, practices, or customs to: (1) select inmates to detain, interrogate, and
deport based on their race or ethnicity; (2) unreasonably and unlawfully deny inmates who have a
mental illness or cognitive impairments certain procedural rights; and (3) fail to investigate claims of
U.S. citizenship. Despite these factual commonalities, movants have failed to convince us that the
common factual questions in these two actions are sufficiently complex or numerous to justify Section
1407 transfer at this time. Significantly, defendants’ respective assertions of qualified immunity likely
will turn on individualized facts. Moreover, we are not persuaded that there is a high risk of

1

The United States of America, Dean Caputo, Dashanta Faucette, Robert Kendall, David
Collado, James T. Hayes, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Charles Johnston, Brian Keys, Marco Mondragon,
Michael Moore, John T. Morton, Tracy Moten, Janet Napolitano, Raymond Simonse, and Thomas
G. Snow.

Case MDL No. 2227 Document 29 Filed 04/08/11 Page 2 of 2

-2inconsistent rulings in these two actions, particularly when the actions share only a single defendant –
The United States of America.
Moving defendants are correct that the Panel previously has centralized four Bivens actions
involving claims of unconstitutional conditions of confinement. See MDL No. 1686 – In re: Iraq &
Afghanistan Detainees Litig., 374 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1357 (J.P.M.L. 2005). However, unlike the
litigation now before the Panel, MDL No. 1686 arose in a more factually and legally complex context,
with multiple plaintiffs asserting claims under domestic and international law, including “allegations
that the defendants authorized and implemented a policy, pattern or practice of torture or other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment in detention centers in Iraq and/or Afghanistan and also failed to
respond to reports of such abuses.” Id.
We consider voluntary coordination among the parties and the involved courts of these two
actions to be a preferable alternative to centralization. Though we are denying centralization, we
nevertheless encourage the parties to pursue various alternative approaches, should the need arise, to
minimize the potential for duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli
Lilly and Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Pat. Litig., 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978); see also
Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for
centralization of this litigation is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

_________________________________________
John G. Heyburn II
Chairman
David R. Hansen
W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
Barbara S. Jones

Kathryn H. Vratil
Frank C. Damrell, Jr.
Paul J. Barbadoro