Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02010/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02010-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Plaintiff Keith Duane Arline, Jr. is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I.

RELEVANT HISTORY

This action is proceeding against Defendants Allison, Goss and Wan for the denial of adequate 

outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on March 5, 2015. (ECF No. 42.) On March 10, 

2015, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 43.) 

After receiving an extension of time, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings 

and request for judicial notice on January 25, 2016. (ECF Nos. 45, 46.) Plaintiff filed an opposition 

on March 28, 2016. (ECF No. 50.) On May 4, 2016, the undersigned issued Findings and 

Recommendations recommending that Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied. 

KEITH DUANE ARLINE, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KEN CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00420-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR CONSOLIDATION, RELATING THE

INSTANT CASE WITH 1:13-cv-02010-DAD-SAB 

(PC), AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 

[ECF No. 51]

Case 1:13-cv-02010-LJO-SAB Document 49 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 5
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

(ECF No. 52.) The Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full on June 13, 2016. (ECF No. 

54.) 

Previously on April 12, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for consolidation and stay of the 

proceedings pending the appeal in case number Martinez v. Allison, et.al., 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB. 

(ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, and the motion is therefore submitted for review 

without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ 

motion for consolidation and denies the request to stay the proceedings.

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Consolidation/Relation of Cases

Defendants submit that three cases are currently pending in this Court, relating to a race-based 

lockdown at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (“SATF”) which 

commended June 2009 after a large-scale prison riot: Martinez v. Allison, et.al., 1:11-cv-00293-LJODLB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2014); Arline v. Clark, et.al., 1:11-cv-00420-LJO-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. 

Mar. 11, 2011); and Lopez v. Allison, et.al., 1:13-cv-02010-DAD-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2013). 

This action (Arline) and the Lopez action are still pending before the Court. Defendants argue “[t]he 

commonality of these action is patent and Defendants request consolidation under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 42(a) to avoid inconsistent findings and to save the Court and parties’ litigation 

resources. Defendants also request that the actions be stayed pending disposition of the Martinez 

appeal, as it is anticipated that the Ninth Circuit will a decision clarifying the applicable constitutional 

standards that control this case.” (Mot. at 3:11-16, ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff filed motions for 

consolidation in all of the above-mentioned actions. In Martinez v. Allison, et.al., 1:11-cv-00293-

LJO- DLB (PC), the motion was denied, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction on April 19, 2016. 

(See ECF No. 106.) On April 21, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the April 19, 

2016, order which is pending review. (ECF No. 107.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides that “[i]f actions before the court involve a 

common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 

(a)(2). “The district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same 

Case 1:13-cv-02010-LJO-SAB Document 49 Filed 08/12/16 Page 2 of 5
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

district.” Investors Research Co. V. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777 (9th 

Cir. 1989). 

Pursuant to Local Rule 123, actions are related if:

(1) both actions involve the same parties and are based on the same or a similar claim;

(2) both actions involve the same property, transaction, or event;

(3) both actions involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law and their 

assignment to the same Judge or Magistrate Judge is likely to effect a substantial 

savings of judicial effort, either because the same result should follow in both actions 

or otherwise; or

(4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial duplication of labor if the actions were 

heard by different Judges or Magistrate Judges.

Local Rule 123(a)(1)-4).

The instant action was commenced on March 11, 2011. Plaintiff alleges a claim for cruel and 

unusual punishment or deprivation of outdoor exercise while he was confined at SATF during a 

lockdown beginning in June 2009. Lopez v. Allison, 1:13-cv-02010-DAD-JLT (PC) was commenced 

on December 19, 2013. The Plaintiff (Lopez) was also an inmate confined at SATF and subject to a 

lockdown which began in June 2009. Plaintiff (Lopez) contends he suffered cruel and unusual 

punishment and racial discrimination based on the lockdown/modified programming at SATF after 

riot in June 2009. 

While consolidation of these two actions may be appropriate under certain circumstances, the 

Court finds relation of the two cases to be better suited for relation given that both plaintiffs are 

incarcerated and proceeding pro se. An examination of the two actions, Arline v. Clark, 1:11-cv00420-LJO-SAB (PC) and Lopez v. Allison, 1:13-cv-02010-DAD-JLT (PC), reveals that these actions 

are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). The actions involve the same defendants and 

involve the same or related claims and defenses, as well as similar questions of fact that would 

therefore entail a substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges. A discovery and 

scheduling order have been issued in both cases, and the deadline for discovery in the instant action 

expired on November 10, 2015, and discovery in 1:13-cv02010-DAD-SAB (PC) is set to expire on 

November 29, 2016. The Court finds that relation of the two cases will effectively serve the same 

Case 1:13-cv-02010-LJO-SAB Document 49 Filed 08/12/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

purpose as consolidation for Defendants, but will allow each Plaintiff to separately prosecute their 

case to resolution. Accordingly, assignment of the matters to the same district and magistrate judges is 

likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort and is also likely to be convenient to the parties. 

Thus, the Court will relate, but not consolidate the two actions. 

B. Motion to Stay Proceedings

Defendants move to stay the proceedings pending the appeal in Martinez v. Allison, et.al., 11-

cv-00293, which may possibly elucidate the constitutional standards applicable to the three actions. 

Even if the ruling in the Martinez is affirmed on appeal, Defendants are nonetheless required to 

litigate and brief the issues present in the two (now consolidated) actions to final resolution, as there is 

no res judicata effect from the Martinez ruling. Accordingly, Defendants’ request to stay the 

proceedings shall be denied. 

III.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to consolidate Lopez v. Allison, et.al., 1:13-cv-02010-DAD-JLT 

(PC) with Arline v. Clark, et.al., 1:11-cv-00420-LJO-SAB (PC) is DENIED;

2. As set forth above, it is ordered that action Lopez v. Allison, 1:13-cv02010-DAD-SAB 

(PC), is reassigned to District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill and Magistrate Judge Stanley 

A. Boone for all further proceeding and all pending dates remain in full force and 

effect, but the caption on documents filed in the reassigned case shall be 1:13-cv02010-LJO-SAB (PC); 

3. Defendants’ request to stay the proceedings is DENIED; and

4. Pursuant to Local Rule 302, this matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge Stanley A. 

Boone for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

5.

Case 1:13-cv-02010-LJO-SAB Document 49 Filed 08/12/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Case 1:13-cv-02010-LJO-SAB Document 49 Filed 08/12/16 Page 5 of 5