Estes et al v. Clarke et al

Filing 56

ORDER granting 39 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 44 Prisoner Miscellaneous Motion; dismissing 45 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 50 Prisoner Miscellaneous Motion. Pursuant to Standing Order No. 2013-6, the defendants shall FILE a motion for summary judgment within thirty days of the entry of this order, addressing Estes RLUIPAclaims. Signed by District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 10/14/2015. (slt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
BRUCE A. ESTES,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:15cv00155
By: Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge

ORDER
This matter is before the court on Estes’ motions to amend and to consolidate and on the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Having considered the motions, the court will grant
the motion to amend, deny the motions to consolidate, and dismiss the motion for summary
judgment.
In his motion to amend, Estes specifies that his claims in the complaint are raised under
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, et seq.
(“RLUIPA”). Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may
amend its pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one days after service of a
responsive pleading. Estes’ motion to amend was filed seven days after the defendants filed their
answer. Accordingly, Estes’ motion to amend (Docket No. 39) is GRANTED.
In his motions to consolidate, Estes asks that this case be consolidated with four other
cases raising the same or similar claims. The Fourth Circuit has held that a district court has
“broad discretion under F[ederal] R[ule of] Civ[il] P[rocedure] 42(a) to consolidate causes
pending in the same district.” A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Constr. Corp., 559
F.2d 928, 933 (4th Cir. 1977). In making this decision, the court should examine several factors,
including “whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion [are] overborne by the

risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues . . . .” Arnold v. E. Air
Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 1982), rev’d en banc on other grounds, 712 F.2d 899 (4th
Cir. 1983). The court cannot make this determination until the record is more fully developed,
so Estes’ motions to consolidate (Docket Nos. 44 and 50) are DENIED without prejudice. The
court may consider a renewed request to consolidate later.
In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants address Estes’ claims under the
First and Fourteenth Amendments but not RLUIPA. Because Estes’ claims arise only under
RLUIPA, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 45) is DISMISSED
without prejudice. Pursuant to Standing Order No. 2013-6, the defendants shall FILE a motion
for summary judgment within thirty days of the entry of this order, addressing Estes’ RLUIPA
claims.
The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the parties.
It is so ORDERED.
Entered: October 14, 2015.

Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge

2