The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR HEARING AND TO SHOW CAUSE CONCERNING RELATED CASES IN SEPARATE ACTIONS (Doc. 119)
Plaintiff, Barry Louis Lamon ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff filed this action on February 2, 2009. (Doc. 1.) Initially the Complaint was screened and went forward on Plaintiff's consent to proceed on the claims found cognizable at that time. (Docs. 7, 8, 9.)
Subsequently, the Complaint was re-screened under the stricter pleading standards implemented in Ashcroft v. Iqbal , ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) and was found to state claims for excessive force, deliberate indifference to a threat to Plaintiff's safety, and retaliation; and Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his cognizable claims. (Doc. 111.) Plaintiff filed objections which were overruled and moved for reconsideration which was denied. (Docs. 116, 117.) On June 8, 2011, Plaintiff consented such that this case is proceeding only on the claims found to be cognizable in the re-screening order. (Doc. 118.)
On June 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order issue "establishing a date and time for a hearing and show cause by the parties to (potential) relationship between actions *fn1 proceeding separately in the Eastern District Court." (Doc. 119, p. 1.) Plaintiff apparently filed this motion subsequent to being ordered, in case number 1:07-cv-01390-LJO-GBC PC Lamon v. Adams to show cause why it should not be dismissed as duplicative of case number 1:07-cv-000493-AWI-DLB PC Lamon v. Tilton.
Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (the All Writs Act) as authority for his motion. The All Writs Act authorizes the issuance of extraordinary writs to aid the issuing court's jurisdiction. Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534, 119 S.Ct. 1538 (1999) (quotations omitted). Plaintiff's reliance on the All Writs Act in support of his request for an evidentiary hearing is misplaced as all necessary parties have already appeared in this action. Plaintiff's citation to the All Writs Act is disregarded. Plaintiff also cites Local Rule 123(a). *fn2 However, he fails to identify how a determination that all of his cases are related would effect a substantial savings of judicial effort -- particularly given the vast difference among his cases in procedural posture and named defendants.
Plaintiff's motion appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to avoid dismissal of duplicative claims. A Plaintiff bears the initial burden to not file duplicative claims and shoulders the consequences of their dismissal. The Court's limited resources will not be expended to assist a Plaintiff who has not kept track of which claims he has raised in which action(s). The issue of duplicative claims raised in case number 1:07-cv-01390-LJO-GBC PC Lamon v. Adams is appropriately addressed therein. The claims in this action are not subject to that proceeding and there is no basis to hold a hearing in this action to determine inter-relational aspects between Plaintiff's cases.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's "Motion for Hearing and to Show Cause Pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and Local Rule 78-230(m), Concerning Related Cases in Separate Actions," filed June 8, 2011 (Doc. 119), is HEREBY DENIED.