Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00271/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00271-27/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW A. CEJAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MYERS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO JOIN OPPOSITIONS

(Document 162)

Plaintiff Andrew A. Cejas (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint for violation of the First Amendment against numerous 

Defendants.

Defendants’ January 11, 2016, motions for summary judgment are pending.

1

On March 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that his oppositions to the two 

motions be joined, as he believes that the facts overlap and support each motion. Defendants Foston, 

Van Leer and Pimentel opposed the motion on March 24, 2016. The Court deems the matter 

suitable for decision without additional briefing.

 

1

 There are seven Defendants in this action, though they are not represented by the same counsel. Defendants Myers, 

Trimble, McGee and Fisher are represented by Janine K. Jeffrey. Defendants Foston, Van Leer and Pimentel are 

represented by Shanan L. Hewitt. As a result, there are two separate motions for summary judgment.

Case 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB Document 169 Filed 03/30/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Given that there are two separate motions for summary judgment, and that both motions 

appear fully briefed, the Court will not join Plaintiff’s oppositions at this time. Plaintiff’s request to 

join the oppositions was made after Defendants Foston, Van Leer and Pimentel filed their reply, and 

joining the oppositions would deprive those Defendants of addressing issues raised in Plaintiff’s 

other opposition. Moreover, Plaintiff has filed numerous documents in opposition to both motions, 

from February 22, 2016, through March 23, 2016. Any consolidation of his oppositions would add 

confusion to briefing that is already somewhat complicated.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB Document 169 Filed 03/30/16 Page 2 of 2