Rick Valentini v. David Shinn, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 23, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00936
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO KAB 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Rick Valentini, Nos. CV-23-00936-PHX-MTL (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 David Shinn, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants move to 16 consolidate this action, CV 23-00936-PHX-MTL-DMF (hereinafter the Phoenix action) 17 with CV 23-00323-TUC-SHR (hereinafter the Tucson action) (Doc. 28.) 18 I. Background 19 A. The Phoenix Action 20 On screening the Phoenix action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court found 21 that Plaintiff stated First Amendment claims against Defendants Scott and Venalonzo and 22 an Eighth Amendment claim based on denial of basic necessities against Defendant Padilla 23 based on the following allegations. (Doc. 22.) 24 Between November 4, 2021 and January 2022, while housed in maximum custody, 25 Plaintiff was not allowed to access his religious property or conduct religious services in 26 the recreation pen. Plaintiff’s repeated Inmate Letters to Defendants Scott and Venalonzo 27 went unanswered. Defendant Scott failed to conduct health and welfare checks of 28 detention cells, which were a part of her job description, and Plaintiff was unable to speak 1 with Scott in person. Defendant Venalonzo failed to conduct weekly visits to detention 2 inmates as outlined in Department Order 904, which prevented Plaintiff from being able to 3 speak with him directly. As a result of this conduct, Plaintiff was unable to access his 4 religious materials for 53 days and was unable to celebrate a religious holiday, Yule, on 5 December 21. 6 On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff was moved to “isolated segregation” in Special 7 Management Unit I (SMU I) at the Florence Complex. Although Plaintiff was issued a 8 diet card for a gluten-free diet and informed Defendant Padilla that he needed a medical 9 diet, Plaintiff received no meal on 27 occasions and, on 53 occasions, he received meals 10 that contained bread, cake, cookies, crackers, and pasta, to which Plaintiff is “allergic” 11 because, for 112 days, Defendant Padilla failed to inspect medical diets. As a result, 12 Plaintiff lost 50 pounds, was dizzy and light-headed, and was unable to engage in physical 13 therapy or take medication that had to be taken with food. 14 On June 5, 2025, a Scheduling Order issued in the Phoenix action (Doc. 27). 15 B. The Tucson Action 16 On screening the Tucson action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court found 17 that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Defendant Ware substantially burdened Plaintiff's 18 religious rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment based on the following 19 allegations. (Doc. 21.) 20 In early 2023, Plaintiff received approval from Chaplain Venalonzo to purchase 18 21 religious books, a deck of vintage Tarot cards, 30 religious magazines, a set of wooden 22 runes, and a set of correspondence courses to study to become a high priest as a method of 23 practicing his Wicca religion. After completing the required paperwork, which was 24 reviewed by Correctional Officer III Noel and Deputy Warden Martinez, the items were 25 ordered and $750 was deducted from Plaintiff's inmate trust account to pay the three ADC- 26 approved vendors for the items. 27 On April 4, 2023, the ordered items arrived at the Tucson Complex Mail and 28 Property Room, and CO II Dunn seized the items on orders from Defendant Ware because 1 Ware had declared Wicca was “detrimental to the safe, secure, and orderly operation of the 2 facility” despite Department Order 904 specifically providing Wiccans were allowed to 3 possess religious books, magazines, divinatory items, and correspondence courses sacred 4 to their religion. Chaplain Venalonzo admitted Defendant Ware had seized the ordered 5 items because, as a Roman Catholic, he regarded Wiccans as devil-worshipers because 6 they believed God was a woman and anything pertaining to women was from the devil. 7 On July 17, 2023, CO II Moreno informed Plaintiff all his ordered religious items had been 8 destroyed on orders of Defendant Ware. 9 No Scheduling Order has been issued in the Tucson action. 10 II. Discussion 11 Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “if actions before 12 the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may” “join for hearing or 13 trial any or all matters at issue in the actions,” “consolidate the actions,” or “issue any other 14 orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P 42(a)(1)-(3). The court has 15 broad discretion to determine whether consolidation is appropriate. Investors Research 16 Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). 17 Defendants assert that the Phoenix and Tucson actions should be consolidated 18 because both cases relate to Plaintiff’s religious Wicca practice, involved the confiscation 19 or destruction of religious property by employees of the Arizona Department of 20 Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR), and both cases have a First 21 Amendment claim. Defendants further assert that Venalonzo is a Defendant in one case 22 and a witness in another. 23 Aside from Defendant Venalonzo being a witness in one case and a Defendant in 24 another, the cases are not sufficiently similar to justify consolidation. Rather, the cases 25 involve entirely separate events and Defendants and occurred at entirely different times 26 and locations. Consolidating these cases would not result in judicial convenience, but 27 would rather risk confusion regarding entirely separate claims. See, e.g., Paxonet 28 Commc'ns, Inc. v. TranSwitch Corp., 303 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (“To 1 | determine whether to consolidate, a court weighs the interest in judicial convenience 2| against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation.’). 3} Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate will be denied.” 4| ITIS ORDERED: 5 (1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 28). 7 (2) Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 28) is denied. 8 (3) The Clerk of the Court must file a copy of this Order in CV 23-00323-TUC- 9} SHR. 10 Dated this 22nd day of October, 2025. 11

Michael T. Liburdi 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26) 00 27 * This decision does not preclude Defendant from seeking transfer of the cases to a single judge to determine whether limited discovery, such as the deposition of Venalonzo, 28) could be coordinated to encompass both actions. See LRCiv. 42.1(a)(5); Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(3).