Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00060/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00060-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD WRIGHT, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-01822-AWI-GSA (PC)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF 

SEPTEMBER 4, 2014

(ECF No. 10.)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION 

(ECF No. 13.)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO 

CONSOLIDATE THIS CASE WITH 

CASE 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB

I. BACKGROUND

On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff Donald Wright, a state prisoner, filed this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while proceeding in pro per, alleging failure to provide 

medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) 

On September 4, 2014, the court entered findings and recommendations to dismiss this 

action based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s orders of November 13, 2013 and 

March 10, 2014, which ordered Plaintiff to submit the court’s form indicating consent to or 

decline of Magistrate Jurisdiction. (ECF No. 10.) On September 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 

stipulation to substitute Attorney Benjamin Pavone as his attorney of record. (ECF No. 11.) 

On September 18, 2014, Attorney Pavone filed a notice of related cases, objections to the 

findings and recommendations, and a request for consolidation, on Plaintiff’s behalf. (ECF 

Nos. 12, 13.) On September 26, 2014, the court approved the stipulation for substitution of 

attorneys. (ECF No. 14.)

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 102 Filed 09/30/14 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

II. CONSOLIDATION

Plaintiff contends that this case is related to Smith v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv00060-LJO-SAB, because the defendant parties and claims, based on unlawful contraction of 

the disease known as Valley Fever, are similar within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). 

Plaintiff requests consolidation of this case with Smith, arguing that assignment to the same 

judges will maximize judicial economy and efficiency. 

The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary cost or delay where the claims and 

issues contain common aspects of law or fact. E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th 

Cir. 1998). In determining whether to consolidate cases, “a court weighs the interest of judicial 

convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice caused by consolidation.” 

Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F.Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989). 

Smith is proceeding on the claim that state officials were deliberately indifferent to the 

substantial risk of harm by exposing the named plaintiffs to the risk of contracting Valley 

Fever. The defendants are all alleged to have participated in implementing or continuing the 

same policy of inaction despite their knowledge of the risk. 

The discovery issues in these actions for those defendants named in both complaints 

will be identical in each case. Consolidating these actions will avoid unnecessary costs 

incurred due to identical discovery and motion practice occurring in separate actions. 

Common questions of law and fact appear to exist in these actions. 

It is in the interest of judicial economy to avoid duplication by consolidating these 

actions for all pretrial purposes. Consolidation will conserve judicial resources and the 

resources of the parties by addressing identical issues in a single case. Resolution of these 

actions will involve overlapping facts and witnesses as to the claims raised. It serves judicial 

economy to “avoid the inefficiency of separate trials involving related parties, witnesses, and 

evidence.” E.E.O.C., 135 F.3d at 551. 

At this point in the litigation, the plaintiffs in Smith have been granted the opportunity 

to file a consolidated complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint in this action has not been served, and no 

defendants have appeared in the action. Consolidation of these actions will not cause a delay, 

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 102 Filed 09/30/14 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

but will actually expedite the litigation in this action by allowing Plaintiff to be included in the 

consolidated complaint which can be addressed by one responsive pleading. 

There is no risk of confusion due to the consolidation of these actions, as the claims will 

be identical as to each named defendant. Similarly, the evidence and issues will be the same in 

each case for each defendant. Finally, the Court can discern no prejudice to any of the parties 

by consolidating these actions and consolidating these actions will avoid the danger of having 

inconsistent verdicts in the related cases. The factors considered weigh in favor of 

consolidating these actions for all purposes.

In light of this order, the court’s findings and recommendations of September 4, 2014 

shall be vacated.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court’s findings and recommendations of September 4, 2014 are 

VACATED;

2. Plaintiff’s request for consolidation, filed on September 18, 2014, is 

GRANTED;

3. The Clerk’s Office is directed to consolidate this action with Smith v. 

Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB;

4. Smith v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB shall be designated as

the lead case; and 

5. The Clerk’s Office is directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 102 Filed 09/30/14 Page 3 of 3