Fields v. Newsome
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion to consolidate his case with two other actions, all of which had already been dismissed for failure to pay filing fees after being denied in forma pauperis status. The court denied the motion to consolidate and directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Consolidate denied“Because all three matters have been closed, there are no grounds to consolidate and Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate (ECF No. 12) is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that consolidation requires pending cases. Since the order recites that the current action and the two proposed consolidation targets were already dismissed and closed, there are no active cases to consolidate. The denial is a necessary procedural consequence of the prior dismissals. |
Judgment for Defendants directed“The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Defendants and no further filings will be accepted in this matter.” | agree with court The court directs the entry of judgment to formally close the case file following the denial of the motion and the prior dismissal of the action for failure to pay fees. This is a standard administrative step to finalize the closure of a dismissed case. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It relies on the judicial notice of the status of the other two cases (citing Bias v. Moynihan) to establish that there are no pending cases to consolidate. The logic is straightforward: consolidation cannot occur between closed cases. The order does not need to re-litigate the merits of the prior dismissals, only their procedural status.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCUS BRENT FIELDS, Case No.: 3:23-cv-01416-WQH-MSB CDCR #V-46240, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 CONSOLIDATE AND DIRECTING vs. CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER 14 JUDGMENT GAVIN NEWSOM; KATHLEEN 15 ALLISON; D. GOULDY; NADINE [ECF No. 12] 16 BURKE HARRIS; J. CLARK KELSO;
S. GATES; UNKNOWN RJD NURSE, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 HAYES, Judge: 21 On July 31, 2023, Plaintiff Marcus Brent Fields, a state inmate currently incarcerated 22 at the Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 23 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s claims were far from clear but he appeared to 24 claim that he received the COVID-19 vaccine when he was previously housed at the 25 Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) which “destroyed [his] heart.” See id. at 26 2–6. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief, $54,000,000 in compensatory damages, and 27 $16,000,000 in punitive damages. Id. at 9. Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed 28 In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 5.) l However, the Court found that Plaintiff was not entitled to proceed IFP because he 2 || had previously filed four civil actions and appeals that had been dismissed on the grounds 3 they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. (See Sept. 27, 2023 Order, 4 || ECF No. 8 at 4.) Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP as barred 5 || by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See id. In addition, the Court dismissed the entire action for failing 6 prepay the $402 civil and administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and 7 || directed the Clerk of the Court to close the file. See id. 8 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate this matter with two 9 || other matters he has filed in this Court. (ECF No. 12.) In those other two actions,! Plaintiff 10 also been barred from proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and the actions 11 ||have both been dismissed. See Fields v. Gates, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:23-cv- 12 || 1412-WQH-KSC (Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 13 Dismissing Action) (Sept. 27, 2023); Fields v. Macomber, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case 14 || No. 3:23-cv-1575-DMS-JLB (Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 15 1915(g) and Dismissing Action) (Nov. 16, 2023). 16 Because all three matters have been closed, there are no grounds to consolidate and 17 || Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate (ECF No. 12) is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed 18 || to enter judgment for Defendants and no further filings will be accepted in this matter. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ||Dated: December 1, 2023 BME: ie Z. A a 21 Hon. William Q. Hayes 9 United States District Court 23 24 25 26 || 27 ||" A court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial 3g || system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)).