Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00060/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00060-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COREY CAMPBELL, et al., 

 Plaintiff,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01559-LJO-MJS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTION 

WITH CASE NUMBER 1:14-CV-00060-

LJO-SAB

(ECF No. 9)

Plaintiffs are present and former state prisoner proceeding in this civil rights 

action filed on October 5, 2014 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 6, 2014, 

plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this action into a similar and more comprehensive 

case, Smith v. Schwarzenegger, 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB. (ECF No. 9.)

The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary cost or delay where the 

claims and issues contain common aspects of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); 

E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 1998). In determining whether to 

consolidate cases, “a court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the 

potential for delay, confusion and prejudice caused by consolidation.” Southwest 

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 109 Filed 10/22/14 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

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

is proceeding on the claim that state officials were deliberately indifferent to a 

substantial risk of harm by exposing the named plaintiffs to the risk of contracting Valley 

Fever. The defendants are all alleged to have participated in implementing or continuing 

the same policy of inaction despite their knowledge of the risk. Moving counsel also 

represents plaintiffs in Smith and contends that claims in this action are consistent with 

the allegations set forth in Smith.

The discovery issues will be identical in each case. Consolidating these actions 

will avoid unnecessary costs incurred due to identical discovery and motion practice 

occurring in separate actions. Common questions of law and fact appear to exist in 

these actions. It is in the interest of judicial economy to avoid duplication by 

consolidating these actions for all pretrial purposes. Consolidation will conserve judicial 

resources and the resources of the parties by addressing identical issues in a single 

case. Resolution of these actions will involve overlapping facts and witnesses as to the 

claims raised. It serves judicial economy to “avoid the inefficiency of separate trials 

involving related parties, witnesses, and evidence.” E.E.O.C., 135 F.3d at 551.

At this point in the litigation, plaintiffs in Smith have been granted the opportunity 

to file a consolidated complaint. No defendants have appeared in this action. 

Consolidation of these actions will not cause delay, but will actually expedite litigation by 

allowing plaintiffs to be included in the consolidated complaint which can be addressed 

by one responsive pleading.

There is no risk of confusion due to the consolidation of these actions, as the 

claims will be identical as to each named defendant. Similarly, the evidence and issues 

will be the same in each case for each defendant. Finally, the Court can discern no 

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 109 Filed 10/22/14 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

prejudice to any of the parties by consolidating these actions. Consolidation will avoid 

the danger of having inconsistent verdicts in the related cases. The factors considered 

weigh in favor of consolidating these actions for all purposes.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office is directed to consolidate this action with Smith v. 

Schwarzenegger, 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB;

2. Smith v. Schwarzenegger, 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB shall be designated 

as the lead case; 

3. A consolidated complaint or amendment thereto, merging all plaintiffs into 

one case, shall be filed not later than thirty (30) days following entry of this 

Order; and

4. All scheduled dates in this case are vacated and the Clerk’s Office shall 

administratively close it.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 109 Filed 10/22/14 Page 3 of 3