Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06638/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06638-32/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELONZA JESSE TYLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06638-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO CONSOLIDATE

(Doc. 128)

Plaintiff Elonza Jesse Tyler, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 20, 2004. On April 5, 2010,

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to consolidate this case with case number 1:06-cv-00092-SMS PC

Tyler v. Davis, et al. Both cases involve Eighth Amendment medical care claims against Defendant

Dennis C. Smith relating to Plaintiff’s injured knee. Plaintiff’s claim in this case relates to presurgery issues and Plaintiff’s claim in 1:06-cv-00092-SMS relates to post-surgery issues. On June

4, 2010, Defendant Smith’s counsel in case number 1:06-cv-00092-SMS filed a notice of nonopposition to the consolidation of the cases, but none of the defendants in this case filed a response.

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits the Court to consolidate actions involving a

common question of law or fact, and consolidation is proper when it serves the purposes of judicial 

///

///

In this case, Defendant Williams is represented by different counsel than Defendants Erly and Smith, and

1

Defendant Smith is represented by different counsel in this case than in case number 1:06-cv-00092-SMS.

1

Case 1:04-cv-06638-LJO-BAM Document 136 Filed 06/17/10 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

economy and convenience, e.g., Devlin v. Transportation Communications Intern. Union, 175 F.3d

121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999); Young v. City of Augusta, 59 F.3d 1160, 1169 (11th Cir. 1995).2

In case number 1:06-cv-00092-SMS, Defendant Smith did not meet his burden in moving

for summary judgment, and the case is set for jury trial on Plaintiff’s claim against Smith. In this

case, default was entered against Defendant Smith on February 9, 2010, and there is a pending

motion for default judgment against Smith. Although the two cases involve common questions of 3

law and fact, there very different procedural postures precluding consolidation.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate, filed April 5, 2010, is HEREBY ORDERED

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

It is the Court’s practice in cases such as this to combine consolidated actions into a single action with one

2

operative pleading. See Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2002) (describing three possible consolidation

procedures but declining to decide which is proper).

Inexplicably, Defendant Smith did not file a notice of motion and motion to set aside the entry of default,

3

although he filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.

2

Case 1:04-cv-06638-LJO-BAM Document 136 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 2