(PC) Williams v. Price ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COREY WILLIAMS, Old Case No. 1:20-cv-00312-SAB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTION AND 12 DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO FILE v. COMPLAINT IN LEAD CASE AND CLOSE 13 THIS ACTION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BRANDON 14 PRICE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Corey Williams (“Plaintiff”), a civil detainee, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed an 19 action against Brandon Price and Pamela Ahlin challenging the amended to Cal. Code Regs. 20 tit. 9, § 4350 which added additional devices that are considered contraband and therefore are 21 prohibited to be possessed by a Sexually Violent Predator in the Department of State Hospitals. 22 See Williams v. Price (“Williams I”), No. 1:18-cv-00102-NONE-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 23 2018). In Williams I, Plaintiff alleged that the amendments to section 4350 violated his 24 constitutional rights and that his property which was now contraband under the regulation as 25 well as additional property had been confiscated. (Id.) 26 On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant action (“Williams II”) against Defendants 27 Price and Ahlin, and additional Defendants Aaron Maylin, Samantha Sanchez, and Joanne 1 property pursuant to the amended regulation. 2 Under the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, 3 An action is related to another action within the meaning of this Rule when (1) both actions involve the same parties and are based on the same or a similar 4 claim; (2) both actions involve the same property, transaction, or event; 5 (3) both actions involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law and their assignment to the same Judge or Magistrate Judge is likely to effect a 6 substantial savings of judicial effort, either because the same result should follow in both actions or otherwise; or 7 (4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial duplication of labor if the actions were heard by different Judges or Magistrate Judges. 8 9 L.R. 123(a). These actions were related and reassigned to the magistrate judge on July 10 6, 2020. (Doc. No. 9.) 11 Where there are actions pending before the Court that involve common questions of law 12 or fact, Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “the court may: (1) join 13 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). “For 15 convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate 16 trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.” 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). “The district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate 18 cases pending in the same district.” Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of 19 California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). 20 Here, both actions, Williams I and Williams II, bring the same challenges to the 21 amendment to section 4350 and allege confiscation of the same property due to the amended 22 regulation. Both actions are brought against Defendants Price and Ahlin, although Plaintiff has 23 included additional defendants in Williams II. As both of these actions involve the same or 24 similar parties and are based on the same claims, the court finds that it will effect a substantial 25 savings of judicial effort to consolidate these actions into a single action under Rule 42(a). 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. This action is consolidated under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil WAOe 4.40 °UV VU LYMEUINVYINE SGA RVUEPOTI Po PIN eee AY VU VI 1 2. The Clerk’s Office is directed to consolidate Williams v. Price, No. 1:18-cv- 2 00102-NONE-SAB and Williams v. Price, No. 1:20-cv-312-SAB; 3 3. Williams v. Price, No. 1:18-cv-00102-NONE-SAB shall be designated as the lead 4 case; 5 4. The parties are instructed to file all future documents in Williams v. Price, No. 6 1:18-cv-00102-NONE-SAB; and 7 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the May 2, 2020 complaint from 8 Williams v. Price, No. 1:20-cv-312-SAB and a copy of this order in the case 9 Williams v. Price, No. 1:18-cv-00102-NONE-SAB and to close this action. 10 i IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ 4 12 | Dated: _ July 20, 2020 LL 1 Yrod UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28