From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cisneros v. Vangilder

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 19, 2016
Case No. 16-cv-0735-HSG (PR) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2016)

Opinion

Case No. 16-cv-0735-HSG (PR) Case No. 16-cv-0869-HSG (PR) Case No. 16-cv-1320-HSG (PR) Case No. 16-cv-1330-HSG (PR)

10-19-2016

DANIEL CISNEROS, Plaintiff, v. J. VANGILDER, et al., Defendants. BENDY A. FALLA, Plaintiff, v. C. DUCART, et al., Defendants. DANIEL MANRIQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. J. VANGIDLER, et al., Defendants. OSCAR CHAIDEZ, Plaintiff, v. J. VANGILDER, et al., Defendants.


AMENDED ORDER RELATING CASES; ADDRESSING REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME

Re: Dkt. No. 21, 28 Re: Dkt. No. 18 Re: Dkt. No. 27

The order entered on September 27, 2016 is vacated and replaced with the following order:

Good cause appearing, the above-referenced cases are related and the Clerk shall reassign case numbers C 16-0869 JST (PR), C 16-1320 MEJ (PR); and C 16-1330 NJV (PR) to the undersigned.

The parties are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear the initials of the newly assigned judge ("HSG") after the case number.

The dispositive motion briefing schedules currently set in Cisneros v. Vangilder, et al., No. C 16-0735 HSG (PR) and Chaidez v. Vangilder, et al., No. C 16-1330 NJV (PR) are VACATED. The Court will set a new briefing schedule after the operative complaints in Falla v. Ducart, et al., No. C 16-0869 JST (PR) and Manriquez v. Vangilder, et al., No. C 16-1320 MEJ (PR) are screened and served.

Defendants' motion to consolidate the cases for all purposes is DENIED without prejudice. Although the cases involve common questions of law and/or fact, they do not present identical claims. Further, as noted above, two of the cases have not yet been screened and thus are at different stages of litigation. Finally, given that the cases were separately brought by four different inmates, all proceeding pro se, consolidation poses a risk of confusion to plaintiffs. The relation of the cases avoids the possibility of conflicting decisions and serves the interest of judicial economy, and the Court intends to set the same dispositive motion deadline for all four cases. Any further benefit from consolidation would be minimal. Accordingly, there will be no lead case, and the cases shall continue to proceed under their separate case numbers. Should the circumstances of the cases materially change, defendants' may re-file their motion to consolidate.

Plaintiff Manriquez's application for an extension of time to oppose defendants' motion to consolidate is DENIED as moot.

Good cause appearing, plaintiff Chaidez's application for a 30-day extension of time to make corrections to his deposition transcript is GRANTED. // // //

This order terminates Docket Nos. 21 and 28 in Case No. C 16-cv-0735, Docket No. 18 in Case No. C 16-cv-1320, and Docket No. 27 in Case No. C 16-cv-1330.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 19, 2016

/s/_________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Cisneros v. Vangilder

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 19, 2016
Case No. 16-cv-0735-HSG (PR) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2016)
Case details for

Cisneros v. Vangilder

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL CISNEROS, Plaintiff, v. J. VANGILDER, et al., Defendants. BENDY A…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 19, 2016

Citations

Case No. 16-cv-0735-HSG (PR) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2016)