Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05641/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05641-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC JOHNSON, CASE NO. CV-F-03-6440 LJO DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASE

NUMBER CV-F-03-5641-OWW-WMW-P

vs. WITH CV-F-03-6440-LJO DLB-P AND

DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE 

D. MILLER, et al., CV-F-03–6440-LJO -DLB-P

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff filed the amended complaint in this action on July 23, 2004. On October 4, 2006 and

October 5, 2006, the parties filed motions to consolidate this case with CV -F-03-5641 OWW WMW

P.

Upon review of the amended complaint in the present case and the amended complaint in CV-F03-5641, the court notes that the complaints involve the same parties and the same incident and involve

common questions of law and fact. 

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 of 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. Pro. 42(a). Consolidation may be ordered on motion of any

Case 1:03-cv-05641-OWW -WMW Document 50 Filed 03/30/07 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

2

party or on the court’s own motion whenever it reasonably appears that consolidation would aid in the

efficient and economic disposition of a case. See 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 against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation.

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

The court finds that, based on its review of both amended complaints, the two cases

should be consolidated. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Case number CV-F-03-5641 OWW WMW-P is consolidated with CV-F-03-

6440-LJO DLB-P;

3 The Clerk of the Court shall administratively close case number CV-F-03-6440-

LJO DLB-P;

2. No further filings will be allowed in CV-F-03-6440-LJO-DLB-P; and

3. All future filings shall bear case number CV-F-03-5641-OWW-WMW-P.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 27, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05641-OWW -WMW Document 50 Filed 03/30/07 Page 2 of 2