Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02207/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02207-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Geary Wayne Walton, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

__________________________________

Thomas Alec Kidwell

Plaintiff,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.

Defendants.

_________________________________

John Gary Jordan, Jr.

Plaintiff,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2206-PHX-FJM

No. CV-10-2207-PHX-ROS

No. CV-10-2209-PHX-PGR

ORDER

On August 13, 2010, Plaintiffs Geary Wayne Walton, Thomas Kidwell, Joseph

Case 2:10-cv-02207-ROS Document 40 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Starling Greene, and John G. Jordan, Jr., who are confined in the Central Arizona

Correctional Facility in Florence, Arizona, jointly filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, and requested class certification. See Walton v. Ryan, No. CV-10-1732 (D.

Ariz. Aug. 13, 2010). On October 15, 2010, we denied Plaintiffs’ request for class

certification and ordered the action severed into four separate cases (CV-10-1732-PHX-FJM

(doc. 7); CV-10-2206-PHX-FJM (doc. 10)). 

We now have before us Plaintiff Walton’s second motion for class certification (doc.

57), and Defendants’ response (doc. 64). We also have before us Defendants’ motion for

consolidation of related cases (doc. 42), Plaintiff’s response (doc. 41), and Defendants’ reply

(doc. 48). Defendants ask us to consolidate this case with two of the original four cases:

Kidwell v. Ryan, No. CV-10-2207-PHX-ROS and Jordan v. Ryan, No. CV-10-2209-PHXPGR. 

Under Rule 42(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., a court may consolidate actions involving a

common question of law or fact. In exercising our discretion under Rule 42(a), we will

weigh the saving of time and effort achieved through consolidation against any

inconvenience, delay, or expense that consolidation would cause. Huene v. United States,

743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). 

In our October 15, 2010 order, we denied class certification and ordered the action

severed, reasoning that each of the Plaintiffs are inmates proceeding pro se, and none of the

Plaintiffs is an attorney and therefore cannot represent any other Plaintiff. We explained that

because of security concerns related to inmate correspondence and face-to-face

communications, the management of a multiple pro se inmate lawsuit is difficult, inefficient,

and “unfair[] to Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the Court’s goals of achieving judicial economy

and maintaining efficient control of the Court’s docket.” Order at 4. We noted that

“Plaintiffs would have at best only a very limited opportunity to discuss case strategy, share

discovery, or even provide each other copies of the motions and notices they file with the

Court.” Id. Nothing new is presented in either the Defendants’ motion to consolidate or the

Plaintiff’s renewed motion for class certification to change this conclusion. In addition, the

Case 2:10-cv-02207-ROS Document 40 Filed 01/17/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

three cases now at issue have been processing individually for more than a year and are at

different stages of development. For example, the discovery cutoff date and dispositive

motion deadline have already passed in Kidwell v. Ryan, No. CV-10-2207-PHX-ROS. We

therefore reiterate our earlier conclusion that neither consolidation nor class certification is

warranted in this case. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Defendants’ motion to consolidate cases (doc. 42). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s motion for class certification

(doc. 57). 

DATED this 17th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-02207-ROS Document 40 Filed 01/17/12 Page 3 of 3