Opinion
1:12-cv-01549-SKO-HC 1:13-CV-00592-BAM-HC
04-29-2013
JOHNNY LEE BRIGGS, Petitioner, v. FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT, et al., Respondents. JOHHNY LEE BRIGGS, Petitioner, v. C. GIBSON, Respondent.
ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
1:12-cv-01549-SKO-HC
AND 1:13-cv-00592-BAM-HC
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK
TO CLOSE ACTION NUMBER
1:13-cv-00592-BAM-HC
ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO
FILE IN THE FUTURE ALL DOCUMENTS
IN ACTION NUMBER 1:12-cv-01549-
SKO-HC
Petitioner Johnny Lee Briggs is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in action number 1:13-cv-00592-BAM-HC with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. Pending before the Court is the petition, which was filed on April 24, 2013.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court...." Habeas Rule 4; O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990).
From screening the petition in case number 1:13-cv-00592-BAM-HC, it appears that the petition concerns the same detention that is presently before the Court in Johnny Lee Briggs v. Fresno Superior Court, case number 1:12-cv-01549-SKO-HC, another habeas corpus proceeding that is awaiting screening.
Accordingly, the Court EXERCISES its discretion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) to consolidate the two habeas corpus actions for all purposes so that the cases may be screened together, and the exact nature of the claims for relief may be determined.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) provides:
If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may:
1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;
2) consolidate the actions; or
3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that
1. Actions number 1:12-cv-01549-SKO-HC and 1:13-cv-00592- BAM-HC are CONSOLIDATED for all purposes; and
2. Pending further order of the Court, the parties are DIRECTED to file all future papers in action number 1:12-cv-01549-SKO-HC with a caption of Johnny Lee Briggs v. Fresno Superior Court, et al.; and
3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file all future papers in action number 1:12-cv-01549-SKO-HC, and to close action number 1:13-cv-00592-BAM-HC.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
A trial court has broad discretion to consolidate in whole or in part 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).