Vaughn v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri
DecidedJuly 19, 2021
Docket4:21-cv-00505
StatusUnknown

This text of Vaughn v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Vaughn v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vaughn v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, (E.D. Mo. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM VAUGHN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:21-CV-00503-JAR ) WILLIAM H. GATES, III, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendants United States of America, Joseph Biden, Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, Michael Pence, Nancy Pelosi, and John Roberts’ (collectively, the “Moving Defendants”) Motion to Consolidate and Dismiss. (Doc. 3). This Court previously ordered Plaintiff to respond to the motion on the issue of consolidation only no later than July 12, 2021. (Doc. 5). Since no response has been filed and the deadline has passed, this Court will rule on the Moving Defendants’ unopposed motion for consolidation. Pursuant to E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.03 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2), Moving Defendants seek to consolidate this action with another case in this district captioned William Vaughn v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri et al., No. 4:21-CV-505-JMB (E.D. Mo. 2021) (“Vaughn II”). This Court has “substantial discretion in deciding whether and to what extent to consolidate cases.” Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118, 1131 (2018). In Vaughn II, Plaintiff alleges that the Clerk of Court refused to file the suit presently before this Court and required Plaintiff to either file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay a filing fee. Vaughn II, Doc. 1. This Court finds that consolidation is appropriate because the two actions involve common questions of law and fact, and consolidation will conserve judicial resources without causing any unfair prejudice to Plaintiff. See Horizon Asset Memt., Inc. v. H & R Block, Inc., 580 F.3d 755, 769 (8th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Moving Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate and Dismiss is GRANTED in part and Vaughn IT (Case No. 4:21-CV-505 JMB (E.D. Mo. 2021)) is CONSOLIDATED with this action. The parties are directed to submit all filings in the above- captioned case. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a response to Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (Doc. 3) no later than August 10, 2021. The Court notes that Moving Defendants have directed their Motion to Dismiss to all allegations in this consolidated action. (/d. at 3).

Dated this 19th day of July, 2021.

fou UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Horizon Asset Management Inc. v. H & R BLOCK, INC.
580 F.3d 755 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
Hall v. Hall
584 U.S. 59 (Supreme Court, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Vaughn v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaughn-v-us-district-court-for-the-eastern-district-of-missouri-moed-2021.