Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00926/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00926-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
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

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS, C 06 926 JF RS & C 06 1793 JF RS

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

(DPSAGOK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Michael Angelo MORALES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Jeanne S. WOODFORD, Acting Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation; Steven W. Ornoski, Acting Warden

of San Quentin State Prison; and Does 1-50,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06 219 JF RS

Case Number C 06 926 JF RS

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE 

PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Jeanne S. WOODFORD, Acting Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation; Steven W. Ornoski, Acting Warden

of San Quentin State Prison; and Does 1-50,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06 1793 JF RS

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE 

[Docket No. 4]

 On January 13, 2006, Plaintiff Michael Angelo Morales filed an action, Morales v.

Woodford, No. C 06 219 JF RS, challenging California’s lethal-injection protocol as violating the

Eighth Amendment; on February 10, 2006, he filed a second action, Morales v. Woodford, No. C

**E-filed 3/27/06**

Case 3:06-cv-00926-RS Document 13 Filed 03/27/06 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

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS, C 06 926 JF RS & C 06 1793 JF RS

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

(DPSAGOK)

06 926 JF RS, which was substantially identical to the first action, for exhaustion purposes; the

Court consolidated the two cases on February 13, 2006. 

Subsequently, on March 8, 2006, Plaintiff Pacific News Service (“PNS”) filed a First

Amendment challenge to Defendants’ use of pancuronium bromide as part of the lethal-injection

protocol, Pacific News Service v. Woodford, No. C 06 1793 JF RS; PNS alleges that

pancuronium bromide acts as a “chemical curtain” over the lethal-injection process, thus denying

the public its right to know what actually occurs during an execution. PNS moved to relate and

consolidate its action with those filed by Morales. All parties—that is, both Plaintiffs as well as

Defendants—agreed that the actions are related; accordingly, on March 9, 2006, the Court

granted PNS’s motion insofar as it sought to relate the actions. However, in order to address

substantial case-management raised by Defendants, the Court deferred ruling on consolidation

and scheduled a hearing for March 21, 2006; at the hearing, the Court requested supplemental

briefing. Having reviewed the papers filed by all parties and having considered the oral

arguments of counsel presented at the hearing, the Court will deny the motion to consolidate

without prejudice.

The parties agree that the determination of whether these actions should be consolidated

rests solely on practical considerations. Defendants contend that, in light of the expedited

schedule that the Court has adopted to resolve Morales, consolidation will complicate discovery

and other procedural matters, thereby making management of the present litigation unduly

difficult. Thus, despite the fact that not consolidating the actions may leave an unresolved First

Amendment challenge to California’s lethal-injection protocol pending even after the conclusion

of the proceedings in Morales, Defendants urge the Court to take a deliberate approach to

managing these cases, with PNS being addressed after Morales.

While the Court is committed to resolving all aspects of the present litigation

expeditiously, it will defer to the State’s expressed concerns. Even absent formal consolidation,

the Court has considerable discretion in the management of these cases and may coordinate

Case 3:06-cv-00926-RS Document 13 Filed 03/27/06 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

1At the hearing, counsel for Morales expressed the concern that an appeal of the Court’s

judgment in Morales might be pending while the PNS action was still unresolved. Because of the closely

related nature of these actions, as well as the Court’s inherent authority to determine the timing of its

decisions, the Court considers this scenario unlikely.

3

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS, C 06 926 JF RS & C 06 1793 JF RS

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

(DPSAGOK)

various aspects of the cases if and when such coordination is appropriate.1 Accordingly, and

good cause therefor appearing, PNS’s motion to consolidate its action with Morales’s actions is

denied without prejudice. Any party may bring a renewed motion to consolidate the actions if

future developments warrant reconsideration of the appropriateness of consolidation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 27, 2006 __________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00926-RS Document 13 Filed 03/27/06 Page 3 of 3