Holmberg v. Van Boening et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 30 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5

MICHAEL HOLMBERG,
6

No. C10-5367 BHS/KLS
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10
11

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE

v.
RONALD VAN BOENING, DANIEL
FITZPATRICK, PAUL DRAGO, LT.
MARK KELLER, and DEBRA
LAVAGNINO,
Defendants.

12

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate this matter with Holmberg v. Vail, et

13
al., Case No. C11-5449 BHS/KLS. ECF No. 30. Having reviewed the motion, Defendants’
14
15
16

opposition (ECF No. 31), and balance of the record, the Court finds that the motion should be
denied.
BACKGROUND

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff Michael Holmberg is a Washington State inmate who has filed a 42 U.S.C. §
1983 civil rights action against various employees of the McNeil Island Corrections Center
(MICC), alleging deprivations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s primary claim in this case

21
22

is that the Defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances and/or lawsuits. In Holmberg

23

v. Vail, et al., C11-5449 BHS-KLS, Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations stemming from

24

incidents occurring at the Stafford Creek Corrections Center (SCCC). That case primarily

25

concerns SCCC’s handling of Plaintiff’s mail.

26
ORDER - 1

1

Plaintiff moves to consolidate these cases based on his assertion that both cases involve

2

“arbitrary and illegal institutional policy and practice”, “arbitrary and illegal restriction of

3

outgoing mail”, “retaliation”, and similar requests for relief. ECF No. 30.

4

DISCUSSION

5
Trial courts may consolidate separate civil actions if the actions involve “a common
6
7

question of law or fact”. Civil Rule 42(a). The trial court’s decision on a motion to consolidate

8

lies within the broad discretion of the court. In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th

9

Cir. 1987).

10
11
12

The two cases Plaintiff seeks to consolidate have few, if any, common questions of law
or fact. In this case, Plaintiff claims that several MICC employees retaliated against him for
exercising his constitutional rights. He does not challenge any DOC policy or practice. None of

13
the Defendants in this case are defendants in Case No. C11-5449. Plaintiff’s claims in Case No.
14
15

C11-5449 are against employees of the SCCC, an entirely different DOC facility. This case was

16

filed over a year before Case No. C11-5449 and Defendants have filed a motion for summary

17

judgment, which is pending. No. 32. There are also few or no common issues of law.

18

Although both cases involve claims of retaliation and mishandling of mail, the law underlying

19

these claims is well established and not at issue.

20

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

21
(1)

Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate (ECF No. 30) is DENIED.

23

(2)

The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

24

DATED this

22

2nd

day of September, 2011.

A

25
26

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER - 2