Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01643/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01643-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

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

MICHAEL BLUE, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

JEFFREY A. BEARD,

 Defendant.

1:14-cv-01074-LJO-GSA (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

(ECF No. 20.)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION 

(ECF No. 18.)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO 

CONSOLIDATE THIS CASE WITH 

CASE 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB

I. BACKGROUND

On January 28, 2014, Plaintiff Michael Blue, a state prisoner, filed this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while proceeding in pro per, alleging unlawful contraction 

of the disease known as Valley Fever. (ECF No. 1.) On November 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 

motion to consolidate this case with Smith v. Schwarzenegger, case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB. 

On November 13, 2014, the court approved Plaintiff’s substitution of attorneys, and Benjamin 

L. Pavone appeared as counsel for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 19.)

II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On December 4, 2014, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why 

this case should not be dismissed as duplicative of Akubar v. Schwarzenegger, case 1:14-cv00816-LJO-SAB-PC, which was filed by Michael Blue and numerous co-plaintiffs on May 7, 

2014 and consolidated with Smith on August 18, 2014. On December 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed 

Case 1:13-cv-01643-SAB Document 15 Filed 12/16/14 Page 1 of 3
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

a response to the order to show cause. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff argues that the dismissal of this case 

may cause Plaintiff to lose legal rights under the statute of limitations, and therefore the case 

should be consolidated with Smith instead of being dismissed.

In light of Plaintiff’s response, the order to show cause shall be discharged.

III. REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION

Plaintiff requests that this case be consolidated with Smith, because both cases concern 

unlawful contraction by plaintiffs of the disease known as Valley Fever at the hands of the 

State, and are similar within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Plaintiff argues that he will be 

better served by consolidation. 

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

issues contain common aspects of law or fact. 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 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 the 

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. 

The discovery issues in these actions for those defendants named in both complaints 

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. 

Case 1:13-cv-01643-SAB Document 15 Filed 12/16/14 Page 2 of 3
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

At this point in the litigation, the plaintiffs in Smith have filed a consolidated complaint. 

Plaintiff’s complaint in this action has not been served, and no defendants have appeared in the 

action. Consolidation of these actions will not cause a delay, but will actually expedite the 

litigation in this action by allowing Plaintiff 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 prejudice to any of the parties 

by consolidating these actions and consolidating these actions 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. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for consolidation 

shall be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court’s order to show cause, issued on December 4, 2014, is 

DISCHARGED;

2. Plaintiff’s request for consolidation, filed on November 7, 2014, is GRANTED;

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

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

4. Smith v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB shall be designated as 

the lead case; and 

5. The Clerk’s Office is directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01643-SAB Document 15 Filed 12/16/14 Page 3 of 3