Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ogo v. Sisto

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 18, 2010

J. OGO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
D.K. SISTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiffs are state prisoners proceeding through counsel with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 24, 2010, the court found this case to be "related" to Hassel v. Sisto, CIV S-10-0191 GEB KJM P, and Blasingame v. Sisto, CIV S-10-0514 KJM P, under Local Rule 123(a). Plaintiffs in all three actions are represented by the same counsel.

At a status conference held in Hassel on October 13, 2010, counsel for plaintiffs stated he had no objection to the court's finding that all three cases should be consolidated for all purposes except trial. At the same conference, the court allowed defense counsel in Hassel to file a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Meanwhile, the court issued screening orders in Ogo and Blasingame. The court stated in those screening orders that "all three cases contain nearly identical allegations against defendants Sisto and Traquina" but ruled it appropriate to withhold an order of consolidation until after the court ruled on the motion to dismiss in Hassel. See Ogo, Docket No. 5 at 6-7; Blasingame, Docket No. 7 at 6-7.

The court heard the motion to dismiss in Hassel on November 17, 2010, and ordered that the complaint in that action be dismissed with leave to amend. See Hassel, Docket No. 25. In light of that ruling, the court finds that the screening orders in Ogo and Blasingame should be vacated and those complaints also dismissed with leave to amend. The plaintiffs in Ogo and Blasingame shall file their respective complaints on the same schedule as the plaintiffs in Hassel -- that is, no later than December 1, 2010. After the amended complaints are filed, the court will screen them under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.*fn1 The court will continue to hold consolidation in abeyance until all three amended complaints have been filed.

Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. The screening order of October 15, 2010 (Docket No. 5), is vacated.

2. The complaint filed March 1, 2010, is dismissed without prejudice.

3. Plaintiffs have until December 1, 2010, to file an amended complaint.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.