Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00060/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00060-14/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

DAMOR HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01618-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE AND GRANTING MOTION TO 

CONSOLIDATE ACTION WITH CASE 

NUMBER 1:14-CV-00060-LJO-SAB

(Docs. 24-26)

I. Background

On August 13, 2013, Plaintiff Damor Hill (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging failure to 

provide medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) On May 9, 2014, the 

Court screened and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty days. On 

July 1, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s notice of substitution of Benjamin Pavone, Esquire, as 

counsel, and granted Plaintiff a ninety-day extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF 

Nos. 20-21.) On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of related case and motion to 

consolidate this action with Smith v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB. (ECF No. 

24.)

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 100 Filed 09/25/14 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

On September 22, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his motion to 

consolidate should not be denied and why this action should not be dismissed so Plaintiff’s claims 

can be included in the consolidated complaint in Smith. Plaintiff filed a response on September 

22, 2014. Based on Plaintiff’s response, the order to show cause shall be discharged. 

II. Motion to Consolidate

The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary cost or delay where the claims and 

issues contain common aspects of law or fact. E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th 

Cir. 1998). In determining whether to consolidate cases, “a court weighs the interest of judicial 

convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice caused by consolidation.” 

Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F.Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989).

A. Judicial Convenience

 The Smith case is proceeding on the claim that state officials were deliberately indifferent 

to the substantial risk of harm by exposing the named plaintiffs to the risk of contracting Valley 

Fever. The defendants are all alleged to have participated in implementing or continuing the 

same policy of inaction despite their knowledge of the risk. In his response to the order to show 

cause, Plaintiff represents that his claims in this action are consistent with the allegations set forth 

in Smith. 

The Court has determined that the discovery issues in these actions for those defendants 

named in the complaints will be identical in each case. Thus, consolidating these actions will 

avoid unnecessary costs incurred due to identical discovery and motion practice occurring in 

separate actions. Moreover, common questions of law and fact appear to exist in these actions. 

It is also in the interest of judicial economy to avoid duplication by consolidating these 

actions for all pretrial purposes. Consolidation will conserve judicial resources and the resources 

of the parties by addressing identical issues in a single case. Resolution of these actions will 

involve overlapping facts and witnesses as to the claims raised. It serves judicial economy to 

“avoid the inefficiency of separate trials involving related parties, witnesses, and evidence.” 

E.E.O.C., 135 F.3d at 551. 

///

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 100 Filed 09/25/14 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

3

B. Delay

At this point in the litigation, the plaintiffs in Smith have been granted the opportunity to 

file a consolidated complaint. Plaintiff in this action has not filed an amended complaint and no 

defendants have appeared in the action. As a result, consolidation of these actions will not cause 

a delay, but will actually expedite the litigation in this action by allowing Plaintiff to be included 

in the consolidated complaint which can be addressed by one responsive pleading. 

C. Confusion and Prejudice

In this case, there is no risk of confusion due to the consolidation of these actions, as the 

claims will be identical as to each named defendant. Similarly, the evidence and issues will be 

the same in each case for each defendant. 

Finally, the Court can discern no prejudice to any of the parties by consolidating these 

actions, and consolidation will avoid the danger of having inconsistent verdicts in the related 

cases. 

Thus, the factors considered weigh in favor of consolidating these actions for all purposes.

III. Order

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order to show cause, filed on September 22, 2014, is discharged;

2. The Clerk’s Office is directed to consolidate this action with Smith v. 

Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB;

3. Smith v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB shall be designated as the 

lead case; and 

4. The Clerk’s Office is directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 24, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 100 Filed 09/25/14 Page 3 of 3