Bridges, II v. Louthan

• Court: District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
• Decided: April 7, 2023
• Docket: 6:22-cv-00215
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

KRIS EDWARD BRIDGES, II,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 22-CV-215-JFH-JAR

DAVID LOUTHAN, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Kris Edward Bridges, II has filed a motion to consolidate this case with his pending case in the Northern District of Oklahoma, Bridges v. Gates, No. CIV-22-322-TCK-CDL (N.D. Okla. July 18, 2022). Dkt. No. 60. Plaintiff wants to limit the “time and hassle that it would cause by keeping these cases separate,” and he claims consolidation would save money and result in less stress for the parties. Id. at 1. A review of the two cases shows the incidents of which he complains occurred at different Oklahoma Department of Corrections facilities within the territorial jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Oklahoma and the Northern District of Oklahoma. In addition, different defendants are named in the two cases. Rule 42(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may consolidate the actions.” However, “[a]ctions pending in different federal district courts are not pending before the same court, and therefore cannot be consolidated pursuant to the plain language of Rule 42(a).” Electronic Payment Systems, LLC v. Electronic Payment Solutions of America Inc., 2019 WL 2106416, at *1 (D.Colo. 2019). See also Fried v. LVI Servs., Inc., 557 F. App’x. 61, 65 (2nd Cir. 2014) (noting Rule 42(a) does not permit consolidation of two cases in different districts). 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Bridges’ motion to consolidate his case in this Court with his case in the Northern District of Oklahoma [Dkt. No. 60] is denied. Dated this 7th day of April 2023.

____________________________________ JOHN F. HEIL, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE