Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00060/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00060-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COREY LAMAR SMITH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB

ORDER RE: STIPULATION ON

CONSOLIDATION

(ECF No. 98)

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties as follows:

(1) The Court has ordered that Smith v. Schwarzenegger, Beagle v. Schwarzenegger, 

Abukar v. Schwarzenegger, and Adams v. Schwarzenegger be consolidated and that Plaintiffs’ 

counsel file a single consolidated complaint by December 1, 2014. (Order Consolid. Related 

Cases, ECF No. 82; Order Granting Ext. of Time, ECF No. 91.)

(2) Plaintiffs’ counsel intends to file similar claims on behalf of inmates who are not 

parties to the existing consolidated actions. 

(3) Because of the common issues and defendants in the anticipated additional claims, 

as represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel, the parties believe that the purpose and intent of the Court’s 

order requiring a single consolidated complaint would be served by permitting Plaintiffs to 

include additional inmate claimants in their upcoming consolidated complaint that they would 

have otherwise named in a separate but related lawsuit.

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 101 Filed 09/25/14 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

2

(4) Defendants do not waive any defenses to the consolidated complaint, including as 

to any statutes of limitations, and any newly added plaintiffs’ claims will not relate back to the 

earlier-filed pleadings. 

(5) Based on a hearing held between the parties and Court on September 15, 2014 to 

address certain procedural matters, the parties’ understanding is that the Court’s Order of August 

28, 2014 striking the Second Amended Smith Complaint (Case No.1:14-cv-60) and the First 

Amended Beagle Complaint (Case No. 1:14-cv-430), as well as the closing of the ECF files for 

Abukar (Case No. 1:14-cv-816) and Adams (1:14-cv-1226) were for the purpose of case 

administration in order to facilitate the directive to file a consolidated complaint and that the 

Court did not intend by its actions to dismiss any cases or alter the limitations period applicable to

these cases by striking pleadings, ordering consolidated complaints or closing ECF files.

(6) Defendants shall have thirty days after service of the consolidated complaint to file 

their responsive pleading.

The stipulation is acknowledged and accepted and so Ordered. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 24, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 101 Filed 09/25/14 Page 2 of 2