Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08132/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08132-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

1

 Although the consolidation motion would normally be heard by the

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jesse Dupris, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV-08-8132-PCT-LOA

)

vs. )

)

Selanhongva McDonald, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

Jeremy Reed, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV-08-8133-PCT-PGR

)

vs. )

) CONSOLIDATION ORDER

Selanhongvea McDonald, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

Having considered Defendant United States’ Motion to Transfer and

Consolidate Cases (doc. #14 in CV-08-8132-PCT-LOA), to which no objection

has been timely filed, the Court finds that the two cases are sufficiently related as

to merit consolidation for at least pretrial purposes pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a)

and LRCiv 42.1(a).1

 

Case 3:08-cv-08132-PGR Document 15 Filed 02/10/09 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

judge with the lower case number pursuant to LRCiv 42.1(a), who would be

Magistrate Judge Anderson, the Court notes that LRCiv 42.1(a) is currently being

redrafted to require that the district judge decide such a motion when the cases at

issue are assigned to both a district judge and a magistrate judge and the

magistrate judge has the lower case number. In the exercise of the Court’s

discretion, and with the concurrence of Magistrate Judge Anderson, the

undersigned district judge is deciding the consolidation motion. See LRCiv 83.6.

2

 No determination is being made at this time as to whether the two

cases should be consolidated for trial purposes.

- 2 -

The Court further finds in the interest of judicial economy that the

consolidated cases should be assigned to the undersigned district judge pursuant

to LRCiv 42.1(a)(4). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant United States’ Motion to Transfer and

Consolidate Cases (doc. #14 in CV-08-8132-PCT-LOA) is granted to the

following extent:

(1) Dupris v. McDonald, CV-08-8132-PCT-LOA, is transferred to the

Honorable Paul G. Rosenblatt for all further purposes;

(2) Reed v. McDonald, CV-08-8133-PCT-PGR, is consolidated into Dupris

v. McDonald, CV-08-8132-PCT-PGR, for all pretrial purposes.2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all future documents filed in this action,

until otherwise ordered by the Court, shall be filed in Dupris v. McDonald, CV-08-

8132-PCT-PGR.

DATED this 10th day of February, 2009.

Case 3:08-cv-08132-PGR Document 15 Filed 02/10/09 Page 2 of 2