Smith v. Auburn Police Department Officers

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 10 11 RONALD A. SMITH, CASE NOS. 2:23-cv-00079-TL & 2:23-cv-00080-TL 12 Plaintiff(s), v. ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION AND 13 AUBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT et al, DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO 14 AMEND Defendant(s). 15

17 This is a case alleging civil rights violations by local authorities under the Fifth and 18 Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter (“Smith II,” 19 Case No. 2:23-cv-00080-TL) comes before the Court on its own motion. Having considered the 20 complaint and the relevant record, the Court DECLINES to issue summons, CONSOLIDATES the 21 action with a prior action (C23-79), and DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice pursuant to 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 23 Plaintiff Ronald A. Smith proceeds pro se, or without legal counsel. He was granted in 24 forma pauperis status. Dkt. No. 5. No summons has yet issued. 1 This case, Smith II, is substantially identical to another case before this Court that was 2 filed by the same plaintiff, against substantially the same parties, and on the same date. Compare 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Smith v. Auburn Police Dep’t Officers (“Smith 4 I”), No. C23-79 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2023) with Dkt. No. 1 (in forma pauperis application filed

5 Jan. 17, 2023). The only substantive differences appear to be that: (1) Plaintiff names “the 6 Auburn Police Department” as a Defendant, rather than “Auburn Police Department Officers”1; 7 and (2) Plaintiff utilizes a generic form for a civil complaint, rather than the form for filing a 8 civil rights complaint against governmental entities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compare Complaint 9 at 2, 5, Smith I (Jan. 18, 2023), with Dkt. No. 6 at 3. Otherwise, Plaintiff yet again brings suit 10 against certain Auburn Police Department officers, “Child Protective Services,” and “King 11 County Courts/Officers”2 for alleged violations of his constitutional due process rights under the 12 Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution arising out of the allegedly wrongful 13 removal of Plaintiff’s son from his care based on false allegations from Plaintiff’s former 14 partner. Id. at 2–3, 7–8.

15 On January 26, 2023, the Court dismissed Smith I without prejudice for failure to state a 16 claim on which relief can be granted, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Smith I, slip op. at 7 (Jan. 17 26, 2023). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Smith I complaint to cure its 18 deficiencies. Id. 19 Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that, “[i]f actions before the court 20 involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions . . . .” Courts 21 have broad discretion to consolidate cases pending in the same district. Garity v. APWU Nat’l 22 1 Though he names the Auburn Police Department as a Defendant this time rather than “Auburn Police Department 23 Officers,” Plaintiff also lists four separate officers by first initial and last name and lists “Police Officer[s]” as the “Job or Title” for the Defendant. Dkt. No. 6 at 3. 24 2 This is substantively the same Defendant as the “King County Courts (R.J.C.)” Defendant named in Smith I. 1 Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855–56 (9th Cir. 2016). In deciding whether to exercise this 2 discretion, courts generally look to such factors as “judicial economy, whether consolidation 3 would expedite resolution of the case, whether separate cases may yield inconsistent results, and 4 the potential prejudice to [any opposing party].” Amazon.com, Inc. v. AutoSpeedstore, No. C22-

5 1183, 2022 WL 11212033, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 19, 2022) (citing 9 Charles Alan Wright & 6 Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2383 (3d ed., Apr. 2022 Update)). A court 7 may consolidate actions sua sponte, or on its own. See In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 8 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[C]onsolidation is within the broad discretion of the district court . . . and 9 trial courts may consolidate cases sua sponte . . . .”); see also Rittmann v. Amazon.com Inc., C16- 10 1554, 2022 WL 2192921, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 16, 2022) (consolidating four cases sua 11 sponte). 12 Consolidation of the two cases, Smith I and Smith II, is appropriate here. The two cases 13 share common questions of law and fact, as the cases are substantively identical. The Court also 14 finds that judicial economy, expeditious resolution of both cases, consistency of results, and any

15 potential prejudice to any Defendant in the two actions would be served in consolidating the two 16 actions, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). 17 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 18 (1) The Court DECLINES to serve summons in this action. 19 (2) Smith I and Smith II are CONSOLIDATED into the case number 2:23-cv-00079-TL. 20 All future pleadings in the consolidated action shall bear the case number 2:23- 21 cv-00079-TL. 22 23

24 1 (3) The complaint in Smith II (Dkt. No. 6) is DISMISSED without prejudice on the 2 same grounds as in Smith I.3 See Smith I, slip op. at 7 (Jan. 26, 2023). 3 (4) If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint by February 25, 2023, as 4 previously ordered in Smith I, he must include all relevant allegations and claims

5 for the consolidated action in the complaint. No separate amended complaint for 6 Smith II will be permitted. Failure to file a timely amended complaint will result 7 in the dismissal of both Smith I and Smith II. 8 (5) The Clerk is DIRECTED to administratively close Smith II (No. 2:23-cv-00080-TL). 9 Dated this 31st day of January 2023. 10 A 11 Tana Lin United States District Judge 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 3 However, the Smith I admonition regarding the failure to identify the specific “Auburn Police Department Officers” does not apply here, given Plaintiff’s identification of four officers by first initial and last name. See Smith 24 I, slip op. at 6–7.