(PC) Hollins v. Rhodes

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DONALD E. HOLLINS, No. 1:20-cv-00692-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES D. RHODES, et al., 15 Defendants.

DONALD E. HOLLINS, 17 No. 1:20-cv-00775-NONE-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. D. RHODES, et al., Defendants.

23 Plaintiff Donald E. Hollins is proceeding pro se in the above-captioned actions, alleging that defendants deprived him of his civil rights.

25 Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising its discretion, the court “weighs the saving of wOoe 4:2 UV OOM AE SMO tere OY ee | time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it | would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).

3 Here, the court finds that the above-captioned actions involve the same or similar parties, | claims, and questions of fact or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and | duplication of proceedings. Thus, good cause exists to consolidate these cases.

6 Accordingly, 7 1. The above-referenced cases shall be consolidated for all purposes, including trial, 8 pursuant to Rule 42(a); 9 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in each of the above-referenced 10 cases; and 11 3. Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file 12 documents under only the lead case number. Future captions should indicate the 13 lead case number followed by the member case numbers as follows: 14 Lead Case: 1:20-cv-00692-DAD-EPG (PC) 15 Member Case: 1:20-cv-00775-NONE-BAM (PC) | IT IS SO ORDERED. si □ Dated: June 12, 2020 DL A Drage 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE