(PC) Owens v. Banuelos

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THEON OWENS, No. 2:19-CV-1683-MCE-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER D. BANUELOS, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to consolidate cases (ECF No. 21). Specifically, plaintiff seeks to have this case consolidated with a separate pending action, 2:16-cv-2750-JAM-KJN. On April 27, 2020, Magistrate Judge Newman denied plaintiff’s motion to consolidate the two cases at issue. See 2:16-cv-2750-JAM-KJN, ECF No. 168. In that denial, the Court stated that: 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides this Court with broad discretion to consolidate cases that involve common questions of 24 law and fact. See Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A district court generally has ‘broad’ discretion to consolidate 25 actions; we review its decision on consolidation under an abuse of discretion standard.”).

The gravamen of the instant action is plaintiff’s claim that he was 27 subject to excessive force on February 18, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) In case 19- cv-1683, plaintiff alleges that he was subject to excessive force on 28 November 3, 2015. (See 19-cv-1683 at ECF No. 1.) The defendants wOAOe 2 LUV VLYVOU INS IVINS OUI OP ee OY ee 1 named in case 19-cv-1683 are not named as defendants in the instant action. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to consolidate is denied because 2 the excessive force incidents alleged in the instant action and case 19-1683 do not involve common questions of fact.

2:16-cv-2750-JAM-KJN, ECF No. 168, pg. 2.

5 For the same reasons stated in Judge Newman’s April 27, 2020 order, the Court | hereby denies plaintiff's motion to consolidate (ECF No. 21).

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 | Dated: July 21, 2020 Ssvcqo_ 10 DENNIS M. COTA ul UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE