Opinion
2:19-cv-01289-DJC-CKD P
07-25-2023
ANSAR EL MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, v. F. ORR, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Currently pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to consolidate this case with his two subsequently filed civil actions. ECF No. 71. See Muhammad v. Solano, et al., No. 2:21-CV-00892-TLN-JDP-P (E.D. Cal.) (“Solano case”); Muhammad v. Linennger, et al., No. 2:20-cv -00070-DAD-DMC (E.D. Cal.) (“Linennger case”). In the motion, plaintiff seeks to consolidate all three of these cases for the purpose of reaching a global settlement. ECF No. 71. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion asserting that plaintiff fails to demonstrate that all three actions involve common questions of law and fact as required by Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 72. “Moreover, consolidation is not necessary for the parties to pursue a global settlement of these actions, if appropriate, either informally or with the assistance of the Court.” ECF No. 72 at 2. A review of the docket in the Solano case indicates that plaintiff is raising First Amendment and RLUIPA claims against defendants Solano and Ross. See Muhammad v. Solano, et al., No. 2:21-CV-00892-TLN-JDP-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2022) (screening order). In the Linennger case, plaintiff is proceeding on First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims against different defendants based on discrimination, excessive force, and inadequate medical care. See Muhammad v. Linennger, et al., No. 2:20-cv -00070-DAD-DMC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2021) (screening order). The current case involves claims of deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs for his right hand injury. See ECF Nos. 16 (screening order), 18 (service order). Based on the lack of any common question of law or fact, the court denies plaintiff's motion to consolidate. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). Notwithstanding this order, plaintiff is free to reach a settlement agreement with defendants in any single case or combination of his cases.
Also pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery. ECF No. 74. After defendants filed a response to this motion, plaintiff indicated in his reply that he was withdrawing the request. See ECF No. 77 at 4. The court will deny the motion as moot based on plaintiff's request to withdraw the motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to consolidate this case (ECF No. 71) is denied as the cases do not involve common questions of law or fact.
2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery (ECF No. 74) is denied as moot based on plaintiff's withdrawal of the motion.