Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03727/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03727-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWNCEY BLAKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GILLOTE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03727-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

CONSOLIDATE 

Re: Dkt. No. 73

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, has filed this pro se civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment claims for violation of his right to access the 

courts and retaliation for exercising his right to access the courts. Plaintiff now seeks to 

consolidate this action with Blake v. Hoyt, et al., C No. 15-CV-00720 HSG (“Blake II”); Blake v. 

Hoyt, et al., C No. 15-CV-01239 HSG (“Blake III”); and Blake v. Santa Clara Dept. of 

Corrections, et al., C No. 15-CV-03352-HSG (“Blake IV”). For the reasons set forth below, 

Plaintiff’s request to consolidate this case with the other cases is DENIED. 

As an initial matter, it should be noted that Blake IV has been remanded to the state court, 

so to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to consolidate this action with Blake IV, that request is 

DENIED AS MOOT.

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 economy and convenience. “The district court has broad discretion under this rule to 

consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 877 F.2d 

777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining whether to consolidate actions, the Court weighs the 

interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by 

Case 4:14-cv-03727-HSG Document 77 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

consolidation. Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010). The 

Court may decline to consolidate the actions if they are at different stages of discovery or trial 

preparation. Single Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 

2007). 

Defendants oppose the consolidation of this instant action with the other three actions. 

Defendants correctly point out that this action is in a different procedural posture than the other 

cases and that this action involves different facts. In this action, there is a pending motion for 

summary judgment that is fully briefed. See Docket Nos. 51, 59, and 61. In contrast, the

summary judgment motions pending in Blake II and Blake III are not yet fully briefed. This action 

involves Plaintiff’s attempts to contact Internal Affairs to obtain copies of his medical records and 

grievance forms. See Docket No. 10 at 2. Blake II and Blake III, however, concern prison 

officials’ issuance of rule infractions to Plaintiff for sending grievances in envelopes labelled 

“confidential legal mail.” See Blake II, Docket No. 14 at 2–3; Blake III, Docket No. 13 at 2–3.

The Court finds Defendants’ arguments persuasive and DENIES Plaintiff’s request to consolidate 

this action with Blake II and Blake III. As discussed supra, Plaintiff’s request to consolidate this 

case with Blake IV is DENIED AS MOOT.

This order terminates Docket No. 73.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/8/2015

Case 4:14-cv-03727-HSG Document 77 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 2