Harris v. Combs

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM HARRIS, CASE NO. C23-1055-KKE 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION 9 v. 10 JULIE JANSEN, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The complaint (Dkt. No. 10) filed in this 15 case by Plaintiff Christopher William Harris, proceeding pro se, duplicates another complaint filed 16 by Mr. Harris. See Harris v. Combs, Case No. C23-0988-KKE (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. 6. These 17 complaints allege that Defendants violated Mr. Harris’s civil rights by disclosing his confidential 18 and protected medical information and by seeking the revocation of his driving privileges in an 19 unrelated criminal proceeding. See Dkt. Nos. 10, 17; Case No. C23-0988-KKE (W.D. Wash.), 20 Dkt. No. 6. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits a court to inter alia consolidate actions that 22 involve common questions of law or fact. To determine whether to exercise its broad discretion 23 to consolidate actions, courts “evaluate the existence of common questions of law or fact and weigh 24 1 the interests of judicial economy against any delay or prejudice that may result.” Burton-Curl v. 2 Seattle College District South Campus, Case No. 2:22-cv-01781-LK, 2023 WL 2352225, at *1 3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 3, 2023) (cleaned up). A court may consolidate cases on its own motion. See,

4 e.g., In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[C]onsolidation is within the 5 broad discretion of the district court . . . and trial courts may consolidate cases sua sponte[.]”). 6 Based on the Court’s review of the dockets at issue, and in consideration of the early stage 7 of the litigation, it does not appear that delay or prejudice would result from consolidation. 8 Furthermore, because Mr. Harris has filed identical motions in both cases, consolidation would 9 serve to prevent “needless cluttering of the Court’s docket[.]” Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets, 10 Inc., 487 F.Supp.2d 1009, 1014 (S.D. Ill. 2007). 11 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that: 12 1. This case is consolidated with the lower-numbered case, Case No. C23-988-KKE.

13 2. The parties are directed to use only Case No. C23-988-KKE and not Case No. C23- 14 1055-KKE on all future filings. 15 3. The clerk is directed to terminate the pending motions in Case No. C23-1055-KKE 16 (Dkt. Nos. 13, 16, 17) because they duplicate motions filed in the lead case, Case No. 17 C23-988-KKE, and will be ruled upon in the lead case. 18 Dated this 29th day of September, 2023. 19 A 20 Kymberly K. Evanson 21 United States District Judge

23 24