(PC) Forster v. Clendenin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA FORSTER, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01191-NODJ-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES 13 v. (Doc. 32) 14 STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Joshua Forster is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants 19 Clendenin and Price for violations of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights and related state 20 law violations. 21 On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Consolidate Related Cases.” (Doc. 32.) 22 Plaintiff seeks to consolidate this action with two other actions pending in this District: 23 Stephenson v. Clendenin, 2:22-cv-01521 and Bodnar v. Clendenin, 2:22-cv-01533. (Id. at 1.) He 24 contends the actions involve the same defendants and similar facts and claims. (Id. at 2.) He 25 asserts consolidation would not result in prejudice to the parties or confusion of the issues. (Id.) 26 Plaintiff additionally contends consolidation would conserve judicial resources. (Id.) 27 Defendants filed an opposition on November 17, 2023. (Doc. 34.) Defendants argue the cases Plaintiff seeks to consolidate do not involve similar facts and claims such that consolidation 1 would conserve judicial resources and that consolidation would cause delay and confusion. (Id. at 2 4-5.) Further, Defendants contend consolidation is inappropriate because the Bodnar action is in a 3 procedurally different posture than this action and the Stephenson action. (Id. at 6.) 4 I. DISCUSSION 5 When multiple actions pending before a court involve common questions of law or fact, 6 the court may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all matters at issue in the actions; consolidate 7 the actions; and/or issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 42(a). The court has “broad discretion” to determine whether and to what extent consolidation is 9 appropriate. See Garity v. APWU Nat'l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing 10 Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 11 1989)). “Typically, consolidation is a favored procedure.” Blount v. Boston Scientific 12 Corporation, No. 1:19-cv-00578-AWI-SAB, 2019 WL 3943872, *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2019) 13 (citing In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purifiers Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 282 14 F.R.D. 486, 491 (C.D. Cal. 2012)). In deciding whether to consolidate actions, the court “weighs 15 the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or 16 expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984); Single 17 Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 18 Here, weighing the conservation of judicial resources against any inconvenience, delay or 19 expense, the Court finds consolidation inappropriate. The Court agrees with Defendants that the 20 claims are dissimilar. While some claims overlap, there are significant differences among the 21 claims asserted in this action, and the Stephenson and Bodnar actions. Specifically, the 22 Stephenson and Bodnar actions involves claims of inadequate mental health treatment. Thus, the 23 other actions will involve different questions of law and fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Additionally, 24 as Defendants argue, the Bodnar action is in a different procedural posture. Bodnar’s third 25 amended complaint has not yet been screened and defendants have not appeared in the case. In 26 this action, discovery has commenced and is ongoing; the same is true of the Stephenson action. 27 Therefore, judicial economy would not be served by consolidation and would result in 1 Il. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 Accordingly, for the reasons given above, Plaintiff's motion to consolidate (Doc. 32) is 3 | DENIED. 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. > | Dated: _ March 8, 2024 | Word bo 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28