Jonhatan Joir Medina Alvarado v. Tonya Andrews

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-00112
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 JONHATAN JOIR MEDINA ALVARADO, Old Case No. 1:26-cv-02084 DAD CSK (HC) 11 New Case No. 1:26-cv-02084 JLT EPG (HC) Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER RELATING CASES AND 13 REASSIGNING DISTRICT JUDGE AND 14 TONYA ANDREWS, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 Respondent. ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES 16 17 JONHATAN JOIR MEDINA ALVARADO, Case No. 1:26-cv-00112 JLT EPG (HC)

18 Petitioner, ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES 19 v. 20 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE 21 ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al,

22 Respondents. 23 24 Pursuant to Local Rule 123, the Court finds that the above actions are related under this 25 Court’s Local Rule 123 because they involve overlapping parties, properties, claims, events 26 and/or questions of fact or law. Accordingly, assignment of the actions to the same district judge 27 and magistrate judge will promote convenience, efficiency, and economy for the Court and 28 parties. Thus, the Court ORDERS that Case No. 1:26-cv-02084-DAD-CSK (HC) is reassigned to 1 | USS. District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston and U.S. Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean and shall 2 | bear the New Case No. 1:26-cv-02084-JLT-EPG (HC). 3 In addition, this Court has broad authority to control its own docket, including the 4 | authority to “dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the 5 || previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both 6 | actions” after “weighing the equities of the case[.]” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 7 | F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 8 | (2008). The Court’s discretion over these matters includes the power to undertake consolidation 9 | sua sponte. Martinez v. LVNV Funding LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01228-JLT-CDB, 2025 WL 347307, at 10 | *1 (ELD. Cal. Jan. 30, 2025) (citing Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855-56 (9th 11 | Cir. 2016)). In determining whether consolidation is appropriate, the Court considers any 12 | “common question of law or fact,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2), and “weighs the saving of time and 13 | effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would 14 || cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Single Chip Sys. 15 | Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 16 Here, the matters present overlapping questions of law and fact, consolidation will 17 | improve efficiency, and it does not appear that consolidation could possibly inconvenience or 18 | prejudice any party. Thus, good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS that these cases be 19 | CONSOLIDATED. Case No. 1:26-cv-00112-JLT-EPG (HC) shall be the lead case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 | Dated: _March 20, 2026 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28