United States District Court, D. Idaho
WYLIE G. HUNTER, Plaintiff,
STATE OF IDAHO, et al, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. NYE CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendant Barry McHugh's Motion to
Consolidate. Dkt. 31. In the instant Motion, McHugh moves for
the consolidation of the instant case with a related case-No.
1:19-cv-00227-BLW-currently pending before Judge B. Lynn
reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds that the
facts and legal arguments are adequately presented.
Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and
because the Court finds that the decisional process would not
be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will
decide the Motions without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc.
Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court GRANTS the Motion.
April 5, 2019, Hunter filed the instant case ("Case
113"). Dkt. 1. Broadly speaking, Hunter alleges that
Defendants violated Ms rights during Ms Idaho state court
criminal proceedings. See generally Case 113, Dkts.
1, 4. In early May, Defendants filed motions to dismiss. Case
113, Dkts. 12, 13. On May 23, 2019, Hunter filed a motion
seeking additional time to respond to the pending motions.
Case 113, Dkt. 21. As part of his Motion, Hunter indicated
that he would be filing a separate federal lawsuit "to
challenge my underlying conviction ... and name additional
defendants." Case 113, Dkt. 21, at 2. On June 5, 2019,
the Court granted Hunter's request for more time, set new
briefing deadlines, and took no position on his comments
about filing a new case. Case 113, Dkt. 24.
20, 2019, Hunter filed a second federal lawsuit-No.
1:19-cv-00227 ("Case 227"). Case 227 was assigned
to Judge Winmill upon filing. In accordance with his prior
representations, Hunter's second case-Case 227-focuses on
his underlying conviction and names additional defendants.
Case 227, Dkts. 1, 4. Shortly thereafter, one of the new
defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Case 227, Dkt. 12.
in Case 113, McHugh filed his Motion to Consolidate on July
16, 2019, alleging that the newly filed case-Case 227-should
be joined with that case as both cases stem from the same
underlying facts and circumstances and consolidating the two
cases would promote judicial economy and limit confusion.
Case 113, Dkt. 31.
23, 2019, the State Defendants in Case 227 filed a similar
Motion to Consolidate. Case 227, Dkt. 14. Other defendants
joined the request. Case 227, Dkt. 16. Simultaneously, State
Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Case 227 pending this
Court's resolution of the earlier motion in Case 113.
Case 227, Dkt. 15. Judge Winmill granted the Motion to Stay,
finding that "this case [Case 227] will be stayed
pending United States District Judge David C. Nye's
determination of the Motion to Consolidate Cases in No.
1:19-CV-00113-DCN." Case 227, Dkt. 17. Further, Judge
Winmill vacated all deadlines and pending motions in Case
recently filed a Motion for Judicial Disqualification in Case
Case 227, Dkt. 23. He also filed opposition to the various
consolidation motions. Case 113, Dkt. 33.
42(a) authorizes a district court to consolidate cases that
share "a common question of law or fact."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). The Court has broad discretion to order
consolidation, and in exercising that discretion should
"weigh the saving of time and effort consolidation
would produce against any inconvenience, delay or expenses
that it would cause." Huene v. United States,
743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).
various Defendants' Motions to Consolidate outline the
underlying basis of each case, how they are interrelated
(both legally and factually), and emphasize that
consolidation will conserve resources ...