B.A.Y. v. Warden STEWART DETENTION CENTER, et al.

M.D. Georgia

B.A.Y. v. Warden STEWART DETENTION CENTER, et al.

DecidedOctober 29, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00168

StatusUnknown

This text of B.A.Y. v. Warden STEWART DETENTION CENTER, et al. (B.A.Y. v. Warden STEWART DETENTION CENTER, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

B.A.Y. v. Warden STEWART DETENTION CENTER, et al., (M.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION

B.A.Y., : : Petitioner, : Case No. 4:25-cv-303-CDL-AGH : 28 U.S.C. § 2241 v. : : Case No. 4:25-cv-168-CDL-ALS : 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Warden STEWART : DETENTION CENTER, : et al., : : Respondents. : _________________________________ ORDER

On October 7, 2025, the Court received Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, docketed as Yousef v. Warden, Case Number 4:25-cv-303 (“Yousef”) (ECF No. 1). However, Petitioner previously filed a habeas petition with the Court, which was docketed as Barnabas v. Warden, Case Number 4:25-cv-168-CDL-ALS (“Barnabas”). Both petitions raise nearly identical claims. On October 24, 2025, Respondents brought these duplicate petitions to the Court’s attention through their Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No.5). Respondents request that Yousef and Barnabas be consolidated, and Yousef administratively closed. Id. Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes this Court to consolidate actions that “involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “A district court’s decision whether to consolidate [under Rule 42(a)] is ‘purely discretionary.’” Eghnayem v. Boston Sci. Corp., 873 F.3d 1304, 1313 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985)). Exercising this “considerable” discretion requires weighing the risk of prejudice and confusion that could be caused by consolidation against considerations of judicial economy and the prejudice that duplicative litigation may cause, among other

considerations. Id. (quoting Hendrix, 776 F.2d at 1495). Here, consolidation of Petitioner’s cases will conserve judicial resources and permit the efficient resolution of Petitioner’s claims. Therefore, Respondent’s Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that cases, 4:25- cv-303-CDL-AGH and 4:25-cv-168-CDL-ALS, be CONSOLIDATED and that case 4:25-cv-303-CDL-AGH be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.

SO ORDERED, this 29th day of October, 2025. s/ Amelia G. Helmick UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION

B.A.Y., : : Petitioner, : Case No. 4:25-cv-303-CDL-AGH : 28 U.S.C. § 2241 v. : : Case No. 4:25-cv-168-CDL-ALS : 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Warden STEWART : DETENTION CENTER, : et al., : : Respondents. : _________________________________ ORDER

On October 7, 2025, the Court received Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, docketed as Yousef v. Warden, Case Number 4:25-cv-303 (“Yousef”) (ECF No. 1). However, Petitioner previously filed a habeas petition with the Court, which was docketed as Barnabas v. Warden, Case Number 4:25-cv-168-CDL-ALS (“Barnabas”). Both petitions raise nearly identical claims. On October 24, 2025, Respondents brought these duplicate petitions to the Court’s attention through their Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No.5). Respondents request that Yousef and Barnabas be consolidated, and Yousef administratively closed. Id. Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes this Court to consolidate actions that “involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “A district court’s decision whether to consolidate [under Rule 42(a)] is ‘purely discretionary.’” Eghnayem v. Boston Sci. Corp., 873 F.3d 1304, 1313 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985)). Exercising this “considerable” discretion requires weighing the risk of prejudice and confusion that could be caused by consolidation against considerations of judicial economy and the prejudice that duplicative litigation may cause, among other

considerations. Id. (quoting Hendrix, 776 F.2d at 1495). Here, consolidation of Petitioner’s cases will conserve judicial resources and permit the efficient resolution of Petitioner’s claims. Therefore, Respondent’s Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that cases, 4:25- cv-303-CDL-AGH and 4:25-cv-168-CDL-ALS, be CONSOLIDATED and that case 4:25-cv-303-CDL-AGH be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.

SO ORDERED, this 29th day of October, 2025. s/ Amelia G. Helmick UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

B.A.Y. v. Warden STEWART DETENTION CENTER, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bay-v-warden-stewart-detention-center-et-al-gamd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack