Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04616/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04616-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY E. KEATHLEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HIGHWAY PATROL, et al.,

Defendants. /

Nos. C 06-04616, 06-05471 SI

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DEFERRING

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION,

AND CONSOLIDATING CASES 

On July 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint and a request to proceed in forma pauperis in this

Court (Case No. 06-04616). On September 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a second complaint and request to

proceed in forma pauperis (Case No. 06-05471). On September 15, 2006, the Court signed an order

relating the two cases. On September 25, 2006, the Court held a telephone conference with plaintiff,

in an attempt to clarify the nature of his claims in both cases. Having failed to do so, the Court

dismissed plaintiff’s first complaint without prejudice (Case No. 06-04616). For the reasons discussed

below, the Court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff’s second complaint without prejudice, and DEFERS

ruling on plaintiff’s second in forma pauperis application (Case No. 06-05471). The Court also

CONSOLIDATES the two related cases before this Court. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides:

When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court,

it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may

order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings

therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “The district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases

pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877

Case 3:06-cv-04616-SI Document 12 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). 

 The allegations in plaintiff’s first complaint appear to concern damage to an automobile, and an

assault on plaintiff by two Las Vegas, Nevada police officers. The allegations in plaintiff’s second

complaint also appear to concern damage to an automobile. The Court will therefore exercise its broad

discretion to consolidate these two actions. The clerk will put all the documents from Case No. C 06-

05471 SI into the case file for Case No. C 06-04616 SI and then close Case No. C 06-05471 SI. The

parties will hereafter file all documents in Case No. C 06-04616 SI and make no further filings in Case

No. C 06-05471 SI.

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must include: 1) a short and plain

statement of the court's jurisdiction, 2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff

is entitled to relief, and 3) a demand for judgment for the relief the plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff has not met

the basic requirements of Rule 8 in his complaint in Case No. C 06-05471, as the Court cannot

understand the basis for his claims. The September 25, 2006 phone call with plaintiff did nothing to

clarify his claims. Accordingly, the Court will DISMISS plaintiff’s complaint in Case No. C 06-05471

for failure to comply with Rule 8. As with the first complaint, the Court will grant plaintiff leave to

amend. As these two cases are now consolidated into one case, plaintiff must submit only one

amended complaint for both cases. When setting out his claims in the amended complaint, plaintiff

should make sure to illustrate how the facts support each claim.

As discussed in the previous Order, plaintiff must file his amended complaint on or before

November 17, 2006. If plaintiff fails to file his amended complaint by that date, the matter will be

dismissed. No further amendments will be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2006 _________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04616-SI Document 12 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 2