Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00984/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00984-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Khalafala Khalafala, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Travis Miller, et al., 

Defendants. 

AND RELATED CASES

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-984-PHX-ROS

No. CV-10-986-PHX-ROS

No. CV-10-1259-PHX-ROS

No. CV-10-2552-PHX-ROS

No. CV-10-2553-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) regarding a

Motion to Consolidate in CV-10-984. (Doc. 48). For the following reasons, the R&R will

be adopted in full.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff has approximately ten civil rights suits pending against a variety of

defendants. Plaintiff’s suits stem from his detention in the Florence Detention Center and

the Pinal County Jail. The defendants in the various suits include numerous Pinal County

officials as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. The Pinal County

officials filed a motion to consolidate, asking the Court to consolidate CV-10-986 and CV10-1259 with CV-10-984. (Doc. 41). Magistrate Judge Irwin filed a R&R recommending

the motion to consolidate be denied. The Pinal County officials filed objections to the R&R.

(Doc. 49). The Pinal County officials later filed a second motion to consolidate asking the

Case 2:10-cv-00984-ROS Document 58 Filed 05/12/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Court to consolidate CV-10-2552 and CV-10-2553 with CV-10-984. 

ANALYSIS

I. Standard of Review

A district court “must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report

. . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A court need

review only those portions objected to by a party, meaning a court can adopt without further

review all unobjected to portions. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir.2003).

II. Consolidation is Not Appropriate

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court to consolidate “actions involving

a common question of law or fact.” This rule grants courts the Court “broad discretion” to

determine whether consolidation is appropriate. Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court

for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). “In determining

whether or not to consolidate cases, the Court should weigh the interest of judicial

convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice.” Zhu v. UCBH

Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quotation omitted). See also

Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 496 (1933) (consolidation is appropriate “as

a matter of convenience and economy in administration”). Here, the relevant factors weigh

against consolidation.

Plaintiff’s suits may involve some common questions of law and fact in that they all

stem from his treatment while detained in the Florence Detention Center and the Pinal

County Jail. But the suits involve different events, often different defendants, and often

different types of claims. Judicial convenience would not be served by consolidating these

suits. As Magistrate Judge Irwin pointed out, consolidating Plaintiff’s suits would likely

result in “a completely unwieldy case.” (Doc. 48 at 7). Moreover, consolidating the suits

“would likely cause greater delay and expense than it would avoid.” (Doc. 48 at 7-8). The

Case 2:10-cv-00984-ROS Document 58 Filed 05/12/11 Page 2 of 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

1

 The R&R also addressed the Pinal Officials’ request to sever certain claims. Having

reviewed the issue de novo, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Irwin that “[s]evering

actions poses special problems in pleadings, particularly if amendments are sought.” (Doc.

48 at 8). Severance is not appropriate. 

- 3 -

R&R will be adopted in full.1 

After the R&R on the first motion to consolidate was filed, Defendants filed a second

motion to consolidate. The same analysis applies to that request as to the first request.

Consolidation would be a greater burden on the Court and significantly increase the

likelihood of delay and confusion.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 48) in CV-10-984 is

ADOPTED. The Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 41) in CV-10-984 is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 50) in CV-10-984

is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 39) in CV-10-986

is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 39) in CV-10-1259

is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 18) in CV-10-2552

is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 27) in CV-10-2553

is DENIED.

Dated this 11th day of May, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00984-ROS Document 58 Filed 05/12/11 Page 3 of 3