1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCUS BRENT FIELDS, Case No.: 23-cv-01575-DMS-JLB CDCR No. V-46240, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 CONSOLIDATE AND MOTION TO vs. ADD EXHIBITS 14

15 [ECF Nos. 11, 12] JEFFERY MACOMBER; KATHLEEN

16 ALLISON; S. GATES; C. MOORE; SOUSLEY MAKENZIE; ABDEEN; 17 CDCR, 18 Defendants. 19 20 On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff Marcus Brent Fields, a state inmate currently 21 incarcerated at the Kern Valley State Prison filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant 22 to

. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) The allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint 23 were difficult to discern but he alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when he 24 was previously housed at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”). (See

25 at 4–5.) Plaintiff sought $59,000,000 in compensatory damages, $20,000,000 in punitive 26 damages, and injunctive relief. (Id. at 9.) 27 Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28

(a). However, the Court found that Plaintiff was not entitled to proceed IFP 1 because he had previously filed four civil actions and appeals that had been dismissed on 2 ||the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. (See Order of 3 || November 16, 2023, ECF No. 9.) The Court therefore denied Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed 4 || IFP as barred by

(g). (See id.) The Court also dismissed the entire action 5 || for failing to prepay the $402 civil and administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. 6 || § 1914(a) and directed the Clerk of Court to close the file and enter judgment. See id. 7 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to consolidate this matter with two 8 || other matters he has filed in this Court. (ECF No. 11, at 1.) In those other two actions,! 9 || Plaintiff was also barred from proceeding IFP pursuant to

(g) and both 10 || actions were dismissed. See Fields v. Gates, No. 3:23-cv-1412-WQH-KSC, ECF No. 7 11 ||(S.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2023) (order denying motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 12 dismissing action); Fields v. Newsom, No. 3:23-cv-1416-WQH-MSB (order denying 13 || motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing action) (S.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2023). 14 Because all three matters have been closed, there are no grounds to consolidate. 15 || Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate is therefore DENIED. Further, Plaintiff’s Motion to Add 16 || Exhibits (ECF No. 12) is DENIED as moot. No further filings will be accepted in this 17 || matter. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 || Dated: November 22, 2023 » Yim ym. 21 HON. DANA M. SABRAW, Chief Judge 9 United States District Court 23 24 25 26 || 27 ||" A court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial 3g || system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” Bias v. Moynihan,

(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc.,

, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)).