(PS) Johnson v. Solano County Sheriff,. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES L. JOHNSON, JR., No. 2:22-cv-02061-DAD-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER RELATING AND CONSOLIDATING CASES 14 SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 No. 2:22-cv-02220-KJM-JDP (PC) 17 JAMES L. JOHNSON, JR., 18 Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 CYNTHIA HILL, et al., 21 Defendants. 22 23 Plaintiff James L. Johnson, Jr. is proceeding pro se in the above-captioned actions, 24 alleging that defendants deprived him of his civil rights. 25 An examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within the 26 meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Accordingly, assignment of the above-captioned actions to the 27 same district judge and magistrate judge will promote substantial efficiency and economy for the 28 court and is likely to be convenient for the parties. 1 Moreover, pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions 2 before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or 3 trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other 4 orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising its discretion, the court “weighs the 5 saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or 6 expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). 7 Here, the court finds that the above-captioned actions involve the same or similar parties, 8 claims, and questions of fact or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and 9 duplication of proceedings. Thus, good cause exists to consolidate these cases. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. The above-referenced cases shall be consolidated for all purposes, including trial, 12 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a); 13 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in each of the above-referenced 14 cases; 15 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reassign case 2:22-cv-02220-KJM-JDP to 16 District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney; 17 4. Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file 18 documents under only the lead case number. The Clerk of the Court is directed to 19 administratively close the member case. Future captions should indicate the lead 20 case number followed by the member case numbers as follows: 21 Lead Case: 2:22-cv-02061-DAD-CKD 22 Member Case: 2:22-cv-02220-DAD-CKD 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, 2 in particular, for purposes of addressing defendants’ pending motion to dismiss in 3 the member case (Doc. No. 3) and plaintiffs response regarding service of 4 defendants in the lead case (Doc. No. 12). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ July 20, 2023 Dal A. 2, pel 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28