(PC) Ioane v. Merlak ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL S. IOANE, 1:19-cv-01585-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASES 13 vs. ( ECF No. 6.) 14 STEVEN MERLAK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Michael S. Ioane (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the 21 Complaint commencing this action on November 6, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) 22 On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for all of his related cases to be 23 consolidated. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff refers specifically to three cases: 1:19-cv-00879-JLT; 1:19- 24 cv-01251-JLT, and 1:19-cv-00846-JLT. 25 II. RELATED CASES 26 Under Local Rule 123(a), an action is related to another “when 27 (1) both actions involve the same parties and are based on the same or a similar claim; 28 (2) both actions involve the same property, transaction, or event; 1 (3) both actions involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law and 2 their assignment to the same Judge or Magistrate Judge is likely to effect a 3 substantial savings of judicial effort, either because the same result should follow 4 in both actions or otherwise; or 5 (4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial duplication of labor if the actions 6 were heard by different Judges or Magistrate Judges. 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 This case 1:19-cv-1585-GSA-PC; Ioane v. Puentes, et al., is Plaintiff’s only prisoner civil 9 rights case presently pending at this court. The three cases referred to by Plaintiff -- 1:19-cv- 10 00879-JLT; 1:19-cv-01251-JLT; and 1:19-cv-00846-JLT – are all closed habeas corpus cases 11 that involved different claims, questions of fact, and questions of law than Plaintiff’s present 12 case. Plaintiff has not shown, and the court does not see, how his three closed habeas corpus 13 cases are related to the present case under Local Rule 123(a), or how consolidating the cases 14 would serve any judicial purpose. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate cases shall be 15 denied. 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion to 18 consolidate cases, filed on February 21, 2020, is DENIED. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: May 6, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28