Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00951/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00951-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

Petitioner Trice and Petitioner Nichols are prisoners 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with petitions for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matters have been 

referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

and Local Rules 302 and 303.

KEVIN LAQUIN TRICE,

 Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN BITER, Warden

Respondent.

-------------------------------

TOMMY NICHOLS, 

 Petitioner,

 v.

PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON

WARDEN,

 Respondent.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00951-LJO-SKO-HC

Case No. 1:13-cv-01561-AWI-BAM-HC

ORDER CONSOLIDATING FOR

ALL PURPOSES CASES

1:11-cv-00951-LJO-SKO-HC AND

1:13-cv-01561-AWI-BAM-HC

ON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK

TO CLOSE ACTION NUMBER

1:13-CV-1561-AWI-BAM-HC

ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO FILE 

IN THE FUTURE ALL PAPERS IN ACTION 

NUMBER 1:11-0951-LJO-SKO-HC

Case 1:11-cv-00951-LJO-SKO Document 52 Filed 09/03/14 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

I. Background

Petitioners were jointly tried and convicted of the murder of a 

single victim and related offenses. The record pertinent to both 

cases is lengthy. Petitioner Nichols raises issues relating to 

alleged due process violations resulting from the admission of 

identifications of all co-defendants; these issues are also raised 

by Petitioner Trice. Both cases are ready for decision.

II. Analysis

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) provides:

a) Consolidation. If actions before the 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.

A trial court has broad discretion to consolidate in whole or in 

part cases pending in the same district. Investors Research Co. v. 

United States District Court, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989).

However, it is necessary that the actions have a common question of 

law or fact. Enterprise Bank v. Saettele, 21 F.3d 233, 235 (8th 

Cir. 1994). The purpose of consolidation is not only to enhance 

efficiency of the trial court by avoiding unnecessary duplication of 

evidence and procedures, but also to avoid inconsistent 

adjudications. E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 

1998). Consolidation is inappropriate if it leads to inefficiency, 

inconvenience, or unfair prejudice to a party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

42(b). The Court should weigh the interests of judicial convenience 

against any potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by 

consolidation. Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Machine Shop, 

Case 1:11-cv-00951-LJO-SKO Document 52 Filed 09/03/14 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

Inc., 720 F.Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989).

Consolidation may be ordered on motion of any party to the 

action or on the Court’s own motion. Devlin v. Transportation 

Communications International Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2nd Cir. 

1999).

Here, the identity issues raised by Petitioner Nichols are also 

raised by Petitioner; the actions contain common questions of law 

and fact. Consolidation would be efficient and would also avoid the 

risk of inconsistent adjudications. No potential for delay, 

confusion, or prejudice from consolidation appears. Thus, the Court 

will direct that the cases be consolidated. 

III. Disposition

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) Actions 1:11-cv-00951-LJO-SKO-HC and 1:13-cv-01561-AWI-BAMHC are CONSOLIDATED for all purposes; 

2) The parties are DIRECTED to file all future papers in action 

number 1:11-cv-00951-LJO-SKO-HC; and 

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file all future papers in 

action number 1:11-cv-00951-LJO-SKO-HC, and to close action number 

1:13-cv-01561-AWI-BAM-HC. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00951-LJO-SKO Document 52 Filed 09/03/14 Page 3 of 3