(PC) Saylor v. Allison ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN E. SAYLOR, Case No. 1:21-cv-01062-EPG 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PERMIT JOINDER OF ACTIONS 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., (ECF No. 10) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Brian Saylor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On July 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting joinder of this case with Saylor v. 20 Torres, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01631-DAD-JLT (the “Torres Action”). (ECF No. 10.) The 21 motion explains that “plaintiff has filed two actions severally, within this court, whose relief 22 might be joined.” (Id.) Plaintiff requests that “all parties be relieved from the added burden of 23 pleading two actions severally when they appropriately might instead be joined by cause of 24 action.” (Id.) 25 The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion to consolidate this case and the Torres 26 Action. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides: 2 If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: 3 (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the 4 actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or 5 (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. 6 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). 7 The decision of whether to consolidate cases under Rule 42 is within the broad discretion 8 | of the Court. Pierce v. Cty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A district court 9 | generally has ‘broad’ discretion to consolidate actions.”). In determining whether to consolidate 10 | actions, the court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, 11 | confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation. Southwest Marine, Inc., v. Triple A. Mach. 12 | Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989). 13 The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff has not established that this case and the 14 | Torres Action involve common questions of law or fact. The Court’s initial review of the 15 || complaints in the respective cases indicates that these cases do not involve the same or similar 16 | parties, claims, events, or issues. Therefore, there does not appear to be any judicial convenience 17 | resulting from consolidation of this case and the Torres Action. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Permit Joinder of 19 | Actions (ECF No. 10), construed as a motion for consolidation, is DENIED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 | Dated: _ July 16, 2021 [sf ey — 09 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28