Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JOSEPH L. VAN PATTEN, Plaintiffs, v. RANDALL WRIGHT, STEPHEN P. BORROUGHS, CHRISTINE MARIE SKRINSKA, and DR. BUTLER, Defendants, Case No. 07-C-0788

JOSEPH L VAN PATTEN, Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 07-C-0026

ROBERT A SCHMIDT, RANDALL WRIGHT, STEVE BORROUGHS, and RN PAM RAETHER, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Joseph Lee Van Patten, is proceeding in forma pauperis in two pro se civil rights actions pending in this district. In an order dated October 8, 2008, I denied defendants' motion to consolidate Van Patten v. Wright, et al., Case No. 07-C-0788 (E.D. Wis.), pending before me, with Van Patten v. Schmidt, et al., Case No. 07-C-0026 (E.D. Wis.), which is pending before U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan. Before me now is defendants' renewed motion to consolidate.

Defendants have filed substantively identical motions to consolidate in both cases. Civil L.R. 42.1 (E.D. Wis.) provides that a motion to consolidate "must be decided by the district judge to whom the lowest numbered case is assigned." Judge Callahan is a U.S. Magistrate Judge rather than a District Judge, and at least one of the parties to the action pending before me refused to consent to jurisdiction by a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Therefore, although this case has a higher docket number than the case pending before Judge Callahan, pursuant to Civil L.R. 42.1 (E.D. Wis.), I will decide the motions to consolidate. I denied the earlier motion to consolidate because the case pending before Judge Callahan contains additional claims, both cases have additional defendants, and the cases were at different stages procedurally. Defendants now argue that, due to plaintiff's delay in responding to defendants' motions for summary judgment, the cases are in the same procedural posture. Defendants also argue that consolidation of these cases would serve the interests of judicial economy and efficiency and forestall the risk of inconsistent rulings. They submit that all of plaintiff's claims arise from his confinement at the Shawano County Jail and that the cases involve common questions of law and fact regarding the medical care provided to plaintiff. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) (2007) states: (a) Consolidation. 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

2

(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. I may consolidate actions that are "before the court" and "involve a common question of law or fact." See also Mutual Life v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 292 (1892) (stating that consolidating cases "of like nature and relative to the same question" is within trial court's discretion); 8 James Wm. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice

Download 29744.pdf

Wisconsin Law