Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00434/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00434-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX MACHADO,

Plaintiff,

v.

KELLY HARRINGTON, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-434-AWI-GSA (PC)

1:10-cv-570-OWW-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE

(ECF No. 16 in 1:10-cv-434-AWI-GSA (PC))

(ECF No. 12 in 1:10-cv-570-OWW-MJS (PC))

CLERK SHALL ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE

CASE 1:10-cv-570-OWW-MJS (PC) 

ALL FUTURE FILINGS SHOULD BE MADE IN

1:10-cv-434-AWI-GSA (PC)

Plaintiff Alex Machado (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in these civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s

Motion to Consolidate cases 1:10-cv-434-AWI-GSA and 1:10-cv-570-OWW-MJS. Plaintiff

contends that the cases relate to the exact same issues and facts. 

When actions involving common questions of law or fact are pending before the Court, it

may order the actions consolidated on motion by either party or on the Court’s own motion when

it appears that consolidation would aid in the efficient and economic disposition of the case. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades on December 29, 1972, 549 F.2d

1006 (5th Cir. 1977). The grant or denial of a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court's sound

discretion, and is not dependant on party approval. Investors Research Co. v. United States Dist. Ct.,

877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989); Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1007, 1001 (6th Cir. 1993). 

In determining whether to consolidate actions, the Court weighs the interest of judicial convenience

Case 1:10-cv-00434-AWI -GSA Document 17 Filed 07/16/10 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

against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused byconsolidation. Southwest Marine,

Inc., v. Triple A. Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989).

In this case, the factors undoubtedly weigh in favor of consolidation. Plaintiff has filed the

instant Motion based on his representation that the two cases involve the same facts and issues. No

other party has appeared. The Court has reviewed the operative Complaints and finds that they

involve common questions of law and fact. There is little to no risk of delay, confusion or prejudice. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motions to Consolidate are GRANTED; 

2. Case number 1:10-cv-570-OWW-MJS (PC) is consolidated with 1:10-cv-434-AWIGSA (PC);

3. The Clerk of the Court shall administrativelyclose case number 1:10-cv-570-OWWMJS (PC);

5. No further filings will be allowed in 1:10-cv-570-OWW-MJS (PC); and

6. All future filings shall bear case number 1:10-cv-434-AWI-GSA (PC).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:10-cv-00434-AWI -GSA Document 17 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 2