Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01239/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01239-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWNCEY BLAKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOYT, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 

CONSOLIDATE; GRANTING 

REQUEST TO MODIFY BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE

Case No. 15-cv-00720-HSG 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 16, 23

SHAWNCEY BLAKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOYT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01239-HSG 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 22

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, has filed the above two pro se civil 

rights action — Blake v. Hoyt, et al., C No. 15-cv-00720 HSG (―Blake II‖); Blake v. Hoyt, et al., C 

No. 15-cv-01239 HSG (―Blake III‖) — under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that prison officials 

violated his right to access the courts and retaliated against him for exercising his First 

Amendment rights when they charged him with, and found him guilty of a major rule infraction 

for disobeying a prior order not to send grievances via confidential legal mail. Pending before the 

Court are Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate cases and Defendants’ motion requesting a 

modification of the briefing schedule. The Court addresses each motion below

I. Motion to Consolidate Cases

Plaintiff seeks to consolidate these two actions with Blake v. Gillote, et al., C No. 14-cvCase 4:15-cv-01239-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

03727 HSG (―Blake II‖) and Blake v. Santa Clara Dept. of Corrections, et al., C No. 15-cb03352-HSG (―Blake IV‖). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s request to consolidate this 

case with the other cases is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

Blake IV has been remanded to state court, so to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to 

consolidate this action with Blake IV, that request is DENIED AS MOOT. This Court has already 

DENIED Plaintiff’s request to consolidate Blake I with Plaintiff’s other pending cases in the Order 

Denying Motion to Consolidate, issued in Blake I. The only remaining issue is Plaintiff’s 

unopposed request to consolidate Blake II and Blake III.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits the Court to consolidate actions involving a 

common question of law or fact, and consolidation is proper when it serves the purposes of 

judicial economy and convenience. ―The district court has broad discretion under this rule to 

consolidate cases pending in the same district.‖ Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 877 F.2d 

777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining whether to consolidate actions, the Court weighs the 

interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by 

consolidation. Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010). The 

Court may decline to consolidate the actions if they are at different stages of discovery or trial 

preparation. Single Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 

2007). 

Here, consolidation of Blake II and Blake III is appropriate. Blake II and Blake III, 

concern prison officials’ issuance of rule infractions to Plaintiff for sending grievances in 

envelopes labelled ―confidential legal mail.‖ See Blake II, Docket No. 14 at 2–3; Blake III, 

Docket No. 13 at 2–3. Both cases are in similar procedural postures, with pending summary 

judgment motions that are not fully briefed. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed request to consolidate Blake II and Blake III.

II. Defendants’ Request for a Modification of the Briefing Schedule

Plaintiff has filed summary judgment motions in both Blake II and Blake III. Defendants’ 

oppositions to these summary judgment motions are due December 7, 2015. Defendants’ 

dispositive motions in both cases are due December 31, 2015. Defendants have requested that the 

Case 4:15-cv-01239-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Court grant an extension of time to December 31, 2015, to file their oppositions to the summary 

judgment motions. Good cause being shown, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ request for a 

modification of the briefing schedule. The revised briefing schedule is set forth below.

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s motions to consolidate (Blake II, Docket No. 16; and Blake III, Docket 

No. 15) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Only Blake II and Blake III shall be 

consolidated. The earlier-filed action, Case No. 15-00720, shall serve as the lead case. The clerk 

is directed to administratively close the later-filed action, Case No. 15-01239. All future filings 

should be done in the lead case only.

2. Defendants’ requests to modify the briefing schedule (Blake II, Docket No. 23; and 

Blake III, Docket No. 22) are GRANTED. The revised briefing schedule is as follows:

Defendants’ oppositions to the pending summary judgment motions are due by December 

31, 2015. Plaintiff’s replies in support of his summary judgment motions are due by January 18, 

2016. 

Defendants’ summary judgment or other dispositive motions are due by December 31, 

2015. Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion must be filed 

with the Court and served upon defendants no later than 28 days from the date the motion is filed. 

Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the opposition is filed. The 

motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on 

the motion.

3. This order terminates Docket Nos. 16 and 23 in Blake II, and Docket Nos. 15 and 

22 in Blake III. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/8/2015

Case 4:15-cv-01239-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 3