Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02034/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02034-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

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 The court notes Petitioner’s motion failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1. 

Although the court is granting Petitioner’s motion, Petitioner is admonished that any further

pleadings which fail to comply with Civil Local Rules or Electronic Case Filing Administrative

Policies and Procedures may be stricken and may lead to penalties pursuant to Civil Local Rule

83.1.

07cv2033

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIMITRI VALERYEVICH

TATARINOV,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN

DIEGO; OFFICE OF THE CHIEF

COUNSEL, DEPT. OF HOMELAND

SECURITY; U.S. ATTORNEY,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT; ICE, 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv2033-L(NLS)

Civil No. 07cv2034-L (NLS)

ORDER (1) GRANTING

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE CASES; (2)

ORDERING FILING OF

CONSOLIDATED PETITION; (3)

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE;

AND (4) VACATING HEARING

DATE AND SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE ON PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR STAY OF REMOVAL

Petitioner Dimitri Valeryevich Tatarinov, represented by counsel, simultaneously filed

two Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. One was filed under case no.

07cv2033-L(NLS) and the other under 07cv2034-JAH(POR). On November 4, 2007 in case no.

07cv2034-JAH(POR), Petitioner filed Petitioner’s a Motion to Consolidate This Case with Case

No. 07cv2033-L(NLS).1

 On November 15, 2007, case no. 07cv2034-JAH(POR) was transferred

Case 3:07-cv-02034-L-NLS Document 21 Filed 11/27/07 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 07cv2033

to this court as a related case pursuant to Civil Local Rule 401.(d). Because the two petitions

present common issues of fact and law, Petitioner’s motion to consolidate is GRANTED. 

Petitioner is ordered to file a consolidated petition, and the court is setting a new briefing

schedule on the petition and Petitioner’s pending motion for stay of removal. All further

pleadings shall be filed in case no. 07cv2033-L(NLS) only.

In the petition filed under case no. 07cv2034, Petitioner attacks his state court robbery

conviction which he claims was due to ineffective assistance of counsel. In his petition filed

under case no. 07cv2033, he seeks attacks a subsequent state court shoplifting conviction, which

was “upgraded” to a felony due to the prior robbery conviction. Petitioner argues his second

conviction was due to ineffective assistance of counsel in the prior criminal case as well as in the

subsequent case. As stated in both petitions, due to these convictions, Petitioner, a permanent

resident, was placed in removal proceedings. Petitioner was found removable and is currently

held in custody at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Detention and Removal Center in

San Diego pending removal. The respondents in both actions are identical.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the court may consolidate cases

involving common questions of law or fact to avoid unnecessary costs and delay:

(a) Consolidation. 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.

The court has broad discretion in ordering consolidation. Investors Research Co. v. United

States Dist. Court for Cent. Dist., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). Because the petitions involve

the same parties, present the same issues of law, request the same relief and because many of the

issues of fact are the same, the court hereby consolidates the two actions, and Petitioner is

ordered to file a consolidated petition in case no. 07cv2033-L(NLS). Based on consolidation

and the addition of additional respondents in the amended petitions filed November 16, 2007,

court also modifies the briefing schedule on the consolidated petition and Petitioner’s pending

motion for stay of removal.

/ / / / /

Case 3:07-cv-02034-L-NLS Document 21 Filed 11/27/07 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 07cv2033

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Petitioner’s Motion to Consolidate This Case with Case No. 07cv2033-L(NLS), filed

November 4, 2007, is GRANTED. Cases no. 07cv2033-L(NLS) and 07cv2034-L(NLS) are

hereby CONSOLIDATED. From the date of this order forward, all pleadings shall be filed in

case no. 07cv2033-L(NLS) only.

2. No later than November 30, 2007 Petitioner shall file a consolidated petition which

includes all facts and legal arguments he intends to assert in both cases. Respondents shall file

and serve their respective responses no later than December 21, 2007. The responses shall

include any and all documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised by the

consolidated petition. If Petitioner wishes to reply to Respondents’ responsive memoranda, a

traverse must be filed no later than January 7, 2008. 

3. No later than December 3, 2007 Respondents shall file their respective memoranda of

points and authorities in opposition to Petitioner’s motion for stay of removal, together with

supporting evidence, if any. Although Petitioner filed one motion for stay in each case, the

motions are identical. Accordingly, opposition briefing is required only in case no. 07cv2033-

L(NLS). If Petitioner wishes to reply to Respondents’ opposition briefing, a reply memorandum

of points and authorities must be filed no later than December 3, 2007, together with supporting

evidence, if any. 

4. Upon filing the foregoing, the parties shall await further order of this court. The

hearing date currently set for February 19, 2008 is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 27, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO:

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-02034-L-NLS Document 21 Filed 11/27/07 Page 3 of 3