Reed v. Kariko

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 18, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-05580
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 CHARLES VINCENT REED, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05580-BHS-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v.

13 SARAH KARIKO et al., 14 Defendants.

15 16 The District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, to United 17 States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 18 filed this civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Plaintiff currently has two actions pending before this Court: Reed v. Hammond, et al., 20 Case No. 3:16-cv-5993-BHS-DWC (“Reed I”) and the instant case, Reed v. Koriko, et al., Case 21 No. 3:20-cv-5580-BHS-DWC (“Reed II”). 22 Plaintiff has filed a Motion titled “Motion to Reassign Case and Join Claims Under [Reed 23 I]”. Dkt. 10 (“Motion”). Defendants filed a Response. Dkt. 20. Plaintiff filed a Reply. Dkt. 22. 24 1 The Motion is denied as Plaintiff’s request to reassign this case is now moot, and the two cases 2 involve different facts and allegations. 3 1. Reassignment 4 Plaintiff moves, in part, for the Court to reassign this case, Reed II, because it is related to

5 a previously filed case, Reed I. Dkt. 10. On September 15, 2020, the Court entered a minute 6 order reassigning this case from the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman to the Honorable Benjamin 7 H. Settle as was related to Reed I. Dkt. 11 at 1. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to reassign this case 8 is denied as moot. 9 2. Consolidation 10 In addition to seeking reassignment of Reed I and Reed II, Plaintiff moves for the Court 11 to consolidate the two cases. Dkt. 10. 12 “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) 13 join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or 14 (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Under Rule

15 42, the Court has “broad discretion” to consolidate cases pending in the same district either upon 16 motion by a party or sua sponte. In re Adams Apple., Inc. 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987). 17 In exercising this discretion, the Court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would 18 produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United 19 States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). 20 Here, both Reed I and Reed II are filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and allege violations 21 of Plaintiff’s civil rights pursuant to the Eighth Amendment. See Reed I and Reed II. However, 22 Reed I was filed nearly four years ago in December 2016, and Plaintiff has been appointed pro 23 bono counsel. See Reed I at Dkt. 1, 63 (order appointing counsel). Discovery was completed on

24 1 October 30, 2020, and the Reed I Defendants have filed a Third Motion for Summary Judgment 2 which seeks dismissal of all remaining claims. Dkt. 160. The remaining claims in Reed I are 3 based on Plaintiff’s allegations Defendants failed to timely treat his Hepatitis C infection. Reed I 4 at Dkt. 96 at 10-13; Dkt. 160.

5 In June 2020, Plaintiff filed Reed II. Reed II at Dkt. 1. Plaintiff has not requested counsel, 6 nor has he been appointed pro bono counsel. A scheduling order has not yet been entered and 7 discovery has not yet commenced. In Reed II, Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to evaluate and 8 treat extra-hepatic manifestations;1 failed to continue treatment of other unrelated medical 9 conditions; and failed to properly make, maintain, or organize medical records. Reed II at Dkt. 5 10 at 2-25. 11 Based on the Court’s examination of these two actions, Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 10) is 12 denied. While the two cases require application of similar laws such as the Eighth Amendment, 13 they do not involve the same set of facts or the same parties. The specific factual questions are 14 not common between Reed I and Reed II. For example, whether the Reed I Defendants failed to

15 timely treat Plaintiff’s Hepatitis C infection is not related to whether the Reed II Defendants 16 failed to evaluate and treat extra-hepatic manifestations; failed to treat other unrelated medical 17 conditions; or failed to make, maintain or organize Plaintiff’s medical records. 18 Moreover, Reed I is at a significantly different procedural posture. Consolidation of the 19 cases would cause prejudice since a scheduling order regulating discovery and further 20 21 22

23 1 Plaintiff alleges he has been diagnosed with polycythemia, hyperglycemia, and cryoglobulinemia. Dkt. 5 24 at 4, 7, 8. 1 proceedings has already issued in Reed I and Defendants’ Third Motion for Summary Judgment 2 is pending.2 3 Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate Reed I and Reed II include common questions of fact 4 or any economy or convenience would be achieved through consolidation. Accordingly,

5 Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 10) is denied. 6 Dated this 18th day of November, 2020. 7 A 8 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 2 The Reed I Defendants’ Third Motion for Summary Judgment is ready for the Court’s review December 24 6, 2020. Reed I at Dkt. 160.