Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD ASHKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01611-HBK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

CONSOLIDATE CASES

(Doc. No. No. 63)

Case Nos. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG and 

1:21-cv-01611-HBK

On November 4, 2021, the Northern District of California severed Plaintiff Todd Ashker’s 

claims against Defendants Allison, Prelip, Paris, and Moak and transferred them to this District 

pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and joint motion to transfer these claims. (Doc. No. 61, see

also Doc. Nos. 59, 60). On November 16, 2021, Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 42 to consolidate this action with Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG, asserting that 

the actions involve common questions of fact and noting that the parties agreed in their stipulation 

that these claims should be litigated in Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG.

1

(Doc. No. 63). 

Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the 

1 Because Plaintiff already agreed in the parties’ stipulation that these claims should be litigated in Case 

No. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG, the Court finds it unnecessary to await any potential opposition to the 

motion to consolidate. 

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 61 Filed 11/19/21 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

court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or 

all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to 

avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising its discretion, the Court “weighs the saving of 

time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it 

would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, the Court finds 

that the above-captioned actions involve the same or similar parties, claims, and questions of fact 

or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and duplication of proceedings. Thus, 

good cause exists to grant the motion to consolidate these cases.2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to consolidate (Doc. No. 63) is GRANTED;

2. The above-referenced cases shall be consolidated for all purposes, including trial, 

pursuant to Rule 42(a);

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in each of the above-referenced 

cases;

4. Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file 

documents under only the lead case number. Future captions should indicate the 

lead case number followed by the member case number as follows:

Lead Case: 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG

Member Case: 1:21-cv-01611-HBK

Dated: November 19, 2021 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

“Motions to consolidate are considered non-dispositive and are within the pre-trial authority of the 

magistrate judge.” Jackson v. Berkey, No. 3:19-cv-06101-BHS-DWC, 2020 WL 1974247, at *2 (W.D. 

Wash. Apr. 24, 2020).

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 61 Filed 11/19/21 Page 2 of 2