UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 2, 2012
MARLO K. BROWN,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Marlo K. Brown ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff has consented to the Magistrate Judge handling all matters in this action. (ECF No. 3.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, entities responsible for running the prison where the complained-of incidents occurred, have violated his constitutional rights by not allowing him the process he had prior to his referral to the Special Management Unit ("SMU"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants thereby engaged in a conspiracy to violate his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiff asks for the Court to fashion an appropriate remedy, place him in the general population, or transfer him to another compound.
The consolidated case of Brown v. Swarts, et al., No, 1:11-cv-991-MJS, involves Plaintiff's claims against prison officials for not following proper procedures when placing him in the SMU in violation of rights under the First, Eighth, and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments. The Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint in this action, dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim, and gave him leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff is to file an amended complaint by April 2, 2012. (Id.)
The Court has reviewed the claims asserted in Brown v. Swarts, et al., as well as Plaintiff's claims in the above-captioned action and finds they are sufficiently related to warrant consolidation. The instant action was filed at the same time as the Brown v. Swarts, et al. action and has not yet been screened. Consolidation would not, therefore, effect unnecessary delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008). In fact, Plaintiff is far more likely to be afforded timely relief through consolidation.
Accordingly, the Court hereby orders that the above-captioned action be CONSOLIDATED with lead case Brown v. Swarts, et al., No, 1:11-cv-991-MJS. The Clerk of Court is to file a copy of this Order in both the above-captioned docket and the docket in Brown v. Swarts, et al., No, 1:11-cv-991-MJS in order to notify all parties of the consolidation. The Clerk shall close this member case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.