The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry M. Boyle United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
Before the Court are eight pending motions. (Docket Nos. 30, 40, 42, 46, 48, 49, 51 and 52.) The issues are sufficiently presented by the parties' submissions and the motions on the record to allow the Court to consider and rule upon the issues without the need of a hearing. Having reviewed the record, considered the arguments and submissions of the parties, the Court enters the following Order and Report and Recommendation.
AMENDED COMPLAINTS AND NOTICES OF INTENT TO PROCEED
On February 8, 2010, Plaintiffs were ordered to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies in their original complaints or to file a notice that they wished to proceed on only those claims deemed cognizable by the Court in its screening Order. (Docket No. 33.) The following plaintiffs have filed amended complaints, upon which they may proceed: Wayne P. DeBerry (Docket No. 35), Eldridge Chaney (Docket No. 36), Henry C. Scott (Docket No. 37), Mansfield R. Brown (Docket No. 38), George N. Allen (Docket No. 41), and Harold E. Carmony (Docket No. 53). Plaintiff Lawrence Smith filed a notice that he wished to proceed on the cognizable claims in his original Complaint (Docket No. 39 in this case; Docket No. 1 in Case No. 1:07-CV-913-BLW). These plaintiffs will be permitted to proceed to a triage conference with their cases, and, as a result, an additional screening of the amended complaints will not take place at this time, but voluntary dismissal of non-cognizable claims, further amendment, and further screening will be addressed at the triage conference.
Three plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint or submit notice of intent to proceed as ordered, and therefore, it is recommended that their original Complaints be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the actions filed by Raymond Amadeo (1:07-CV-834-BLW ), Don D. McNeal (1:07-CV-851-BLW), and Fred Scott (1:97-CV-985-BLW) should be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff Rick Gonzales (1:07-CV-427-WMW) did not file an amended complaint, but filed a Motion for Extension of Time to do so (Docket No. 40). He shall file an Amended Complaint no later than August 20, 2010, and if he fails to do so by that date, this Court will recommend that his original Complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
NOTICE OF OTHER RELATED CASES
Previously, the parties were ordered to give the Court notice of other similar cases so that they could be considered for consolidation for reasons of judicial economy. In compliance with that order, counsel for Defendants have given notice to the Court that several cases may be appropriate for consolidation (Docket No. 43) (Sanford D. Jones v. Stephen Mayberg, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01207-YNP, Lawtis Donald Rhoden v. Stephen W. Mayberg, et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-1890-DLB, Raymond Aniadeo v. Pam Ahlin, et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-2017-YNP, Denis K. Rotroffv. Pam Ahlin, et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-2021-GSA, Darryell Frazier v. Pam Ahlin, Case No. 1:09-cv-2153-GSA, Mansfield R. Brown v. Pam Ahlin, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-117-GSA, Jackie Robinson v. Mirian Joya, et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-1339 JLS-BLM). Therefore, the Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this Order to the presiding judge in each of these cases. Then, the presiding judge may determine whether to reassign that particular case for consolidation based on the claims made in that particular case. If the case has been processed to the point that it is close enough to resolution so that consolidation would effect an unnecessary delay, the presiding judge shall not reassign the case. If a particular action has not proceeded to that point, it should be reassigned to this Court and consolidated with this action.
PLAINTIFF DeBERRY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On February 1, 2010, Plaintiff Wayne DeBerry filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket 30). Because this case is being scheduled for a triage conference, this Court will recommend that his Motion for Summary Judgment be stayed pending completion of that conference.
The Court has begun a new case management program for selected inmate cases. In these cases, Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendant will be required to appear at a triage conference with a judge other than the assigned trial judge. Applying by analogy the concept of "triage" borrowed from the medical field to pending litigation,*fn1 the Court has determined that inmate cases with the following characteristics will be channeled to triage conferences: (1) where a request for a temporary restraining order has been filed; (2) where multiple claims or multiple defendants are presented, and a discussion of streamlining the case to core claims and defendants may be beneficial to both sides; (3) where the claims appear amenable to setting the case for early alternative dispute resolution; or (4) where identification of other case management and discovery issues may aid the parties in narrowing and streamlining the litigation. Another relevant concern to be addressed at triage is Plaintiffs' requests for waiver of the security bond (for example, Docket No. 52).
The purpose of these triage conferences are to encourage the parties to engage in case evaluation and management at an early stage, where such early attention appears likely to facilitate or expedite resolution of the case.
In addition, at the triage conference the parties shall address the issue of development and implementation of a permanent streamlined Alternative Dispute Resolution process for resolving future issues and conflicts, whether it be mediation; a panel of inmates, officials, judges, lawyers, and/or community members; or another method. Litigation should be a problem-solving mechanism of last resort, particularly because it removes the ability to self-govern from the parties who have a stake and an interest in the outcome, and instead places it in the hands of a ...