(PC) Quair v. Thomas ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMMY R. QUAIR, SR., No. 1:21-cv-01397-JLT-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION (Doc. 14) 14 THOMAS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Sammy R. Quair, Sr., is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On November 23, 2021, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 20 forma pauperis and ordering Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within 21 days. (Doc. 10.) The Court 21 cautioned Plaintiff that failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time would result in 22 dismissal of this action. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee. On January 27, 2022, the 23 Court dismissed the action for failure to pay the filing fee and judgment was entered accordingly. 24 (Doc. Nos. 12, 13.) 25 On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Order of Consolidation of Sister and 26 Sister ‘Actions.’” (Doc. 14.) In his motion, Plaintiff seeks consolidation of this action with 27 another pending civil rights action brought in this Court: Quair v. Robinson, No. 1:21-cv-01214- enn ne eee EN OER II 1 | DAD-EPG.! 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides this Court with broad discretion to 3 | consolidate cases that involve common questions of law and fact. See Pierce v. County of 4 | Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A district court generally has ‘broad’ discretion to 5 | consolidate actions; we review its decision on consolidation under an abuse of discretion 6 || standard’). In determining whether to consolidate actions, the court weighs the interest of judicial 7 | convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation. 8 | Southwest Marine, Inc., v. Triple A Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989). 9 | The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion. Consolidation of the two actions is inappropriate where 10 | this action has been dismissed, judgment has been entered, and the instant case is now closed. 11 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion to consolidate this action with Quair v. 12 | Robinson, No. 1:21-cv-01214-DAD-EPG (Doc. 14) is denied. This case shall remain closed. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: _ March 7, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ——_ io ————_ ' The Court notes that on January 25, 2022, the Court denied a similar motion filed by Plaintiff to consolidate several 28 actions filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, including this case. See Quair v. Robinson, 2022 WL 228469, at *2-4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2023).