Davis v. Washington State Department of Corrections et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying 79 Motion to Consolidate Cases, signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel.(CMG)(cc mailed to Plaintiff)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 KEITH ADAIR DAVIS, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants. 15 16 CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05129-BHS-DWC The District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, to United 17 States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 18 filed this civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Plaintiff has filed a Motion titled “Motion to Merge Linked Complaints.” Dkt. 79. The 20 Court construes this as a Motion to Consolidate (“Motion”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 42. Id. Defendants filed a Response. Dkt. 80. 22 The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion as the two cases involve different facts and 23 defendants. 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE -1 1 2 3 DISCUSSION “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) 4 join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or 5 (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Under Rule 6 42, the Court has “broad discretion” to consolidate cases pending in the same district either upon 7 motion by a party or sua sponte. In re Adams Apple., Inc. 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987). 8 In exercising this discretion, the Court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would 9 produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United 10 States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). 11 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in two separate civil actions, both 12 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleging violations of his civil rights. Davis v. Washington 13 Department of Corrections, Case No. 3:16-cv-05129-BHS-DWC (“Davis I”); Davis v. Hayes, et 14 al., Western District of Washington Case 2:16-cv-01709-RSM, (“Davis II”). The instant action, 15 Davis I, was filed on February 19, 2016. Davis I at Dkt. 1. Plaintiff is challenging his conditions 16 of confinement while housed at Washington Corrections Center. Id. at Dkt. 11. Plaintiff alleges 17 Defendants, all Department of Corrections employees, violated his rights under the First 18 Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Americans with Disabilities Act 19 (“ADA”). Id. On September 1, 2016, the Court issued a Pretrial Scheduling Order, ordering 20 discovery be completed by March 1, 2017 and dispositive motions due by March 31, 2017. Id. at 21 Dkt. 44. On November 30, 2016, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment, id. at 22 Dkt. 59, which was re-noted for March 3, 2017 after granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension, 23 id. at Dkt. 74; Dkt. 77. 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE -2 1 Plaintiff filed his second action, Davis II, on November 3, 2016. Davis II at Dkt. 1. The 2 Court has not ordered service of Plaintiff’s complaint in Davis II. Id. at Dkt. 7 (Order Declining 3 Service and Granting Leave to Amend); Dkt. 10. In Davis II, Plaintiff is challenging his 4 conditions of confinement while housed at King County Jail. Id. at Dkt. 6; Dkt. 7. Plaintiff 5 purports to sue 47 employees of the King County Jail, Department of Adult and Juvenile 6 Detention, alleging the defendants violated his rights under the First Amendment, Eighth 7 Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and ADA. Id. 8 Based on the Court’s examination of these two actions, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied. 9 While the two cases require application of similar laws, they do not involve the same set of facts 10 or the same parties. Moreover, Davis II is at a different procedural posture and the Court is 11 awaiting the filing of an amended complaint. Consolidation of the cases would cause prejudice 12 since a scheduling order regulating discovery and further proceedings has already issued in 13 Davis I and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is pending. 1 14 Dated this 24th day of January, 2017. 16 A 17 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is ready for the Court’s review on March 3, 24 2017. Davis I at Dkt. 59; Dkt. 77. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE -3

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?