United States District Court, E.D. California
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, has filed two
actions against Northcentral University, pursuant to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as codified, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e to 2000e-17. On September 26, 2017,
plaintiff filed the first action, Aljindi v. Northcentral
University, No. 2:17-cv-01990-JAM-KJN (PS) (E.D. Cal.)
(“Aljindi I”), alleging that defendant
Northcentral University discriminated against plaintiff based
upon his national origin and religion and later retaliated
against him for making complaints, in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis was granted on October 20,
2017. (Aljindi I, ECF No. 4.) Thereafter, on October
31, 2017, defendant Northcentral University was served a copy
of the September 26, 2017 complaint. (Id., ECF No.
8.) On the same day, plaintiff filed a motion to appoint
counsel. (Id., ECF No. 7.)
October 31, 2017, plaintiff also filed Aljindi v.
Northcentral University, No. 2:17-cv-02288-JAM-KJN (PS)
(E.D. Cal.) (“Aljindi II”). Here,
plaintiff again alleges that Northcentral University has
discriminated and retaliated against him, but also alleges
that defendant has bribed officials from the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), so that the
officials would close plaintiff's complaints with the
EEOC. Along with his October 31, 2017 complaint, plaintiff
filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a
motion to appoint counsel, and a notice of related case.
(See Aljindi II, ECF Nos. 2-4.)
Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits the Court to
consolidate actions involving a common question of law or
fact, and consolidation is proper when it serves the purposes
of judicial economy and convenience. “The district
court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate
cases pending in the same district.” Investors
Research Co. v. United States District Court for the Central
District of California, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In
determining whether to consolidate actions, the Court weighs
the interest of judicial convenience against the potential
for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation.
Southwest Marine, Inc., v. Triple A. Mach. Shop,
Inc., 720 F.Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989). Here, the
two actions involve common questions of law and clearly arise
out of the same nucleus of common facts. Thus, in light of
the above factors, consolidation is warranted.
in the interest of judicial convenience and in order to avoid
confusion, the court concludes that plaintiff's claims
ought to be restated in a single unified amended complaint.
“Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a
pleading must contain a ‘short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
677-78 (2009). As it stands, each complaint is over 80 pages
in length. (See Aljindi I, ECF No. 1 (114 pages);
Aljindi II, ECF No. 1 (87 pages).) At the same time,
there is no single pleading that adequately states all the
issues raised by plaintiff against defendant. Therefore, the
court dismisses both complaints, but affords plaintiff an
opportunity to provide an amended complaint with a short and
plain statement of all of his claims against Northcentral
University, showing that he is entitled to relief.
plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it shall be
captioned “First Amended Complaint, ” shall be
typed or written in legible handwriting, shall not
exceed 20 pages, shall include all claims
plaintiff wishes to bring against defendant, and
shall be filed within 28 days of this order in case number
Aljindi v. Northcentral University, No.
is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint
or other filing in order to make plaintiff's first
amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an
amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to
any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint
supersedes the original complaint, and once the first amended
complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves
any function in the case.
nothing in this order requires plaintiff to file a first
amended complaint. If plaintiff determines that he is unable
to amend his complaint in compliance with the court's
order at this juncture, he may alternatively file a notice of
voluntary dismissal of his claims without prejudice pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) within 28
days of this order.
plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel, it is
“well-established that there is generally no
constitutional right to counsel in civil cases.”
United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th
Cir. 1996). Furthermore, there are no exceptional
circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel in this
case. Although the court is sympathetic to the difficulties
faced by pro se litigants in litigating their own
cases in federal court, the court has extremely limited
resources to appoint attorneys in civil cases. Here,
plaintiff's claim is not unusually complex and can be
reasonably prosecuted by a pro se plaintiff. As
such, plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel are
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
actions Aljindi v. Northcentral University, No.
2:17-cv-01990-JAM-KJN (PS) and Aljindi v. Northcentral
University, No. 2:17-cv-02288-JAM-KJN (PS) are
Clerk of Court shall file a copy of this order in both cases
in order to notify all parties of the consolidation.
filing this order, the Clerk of Court shall administratively
close Aljindi v. Northcentral University, No.
future filings shall be in Aljindi v. Northcentral