PEREZ v. CITY OF OSCEOLA, 3:14CV00066 BSM (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20140618827
Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER, Chief District Judge. Plaintiff Tommy Perez, Jr. filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. 1983. [Doc. No.1]. Five days later, Perez filed another pro se complaint alleging related conduct by three of the same defendants. See Perez v. Osceola et al., Case No. 3:14CV00070. Having reviewed the allegations in these two cases, it is determined that consolidation is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), and the defendants' motion for consolidation [Case No. 3:14C
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER, Chief District Judge. Plaintiff Tommy Perez, Jr. filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. 1983. [Doc. No.1]. Five days later, Perez filed another pro se complaint alleging related conduct by three of the same defendants. See Perez v. Osceola et al., Case No. 3:14CV00070. Having reviewed the allegations in these two cases, it is determined that consolidation is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), and the defendants' motion for consolidation [Case No. 3:14CV..
More
ORDER
BRIAN S. MILLER, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff Tommy Perez, Jr. filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. No.1]. Five days later, Perez filed another pro se complaint alleging related conduct by three of the same defendants. See Perez v. Osceola et al., Case No. 3:14CV00070.
Having reviewed the allegations in these two cases, it is determined that consolidation is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), and the defendants' motion for consolidation [Case No. 3:14CV00066, Doc. No. 11] is granted. In accordance with the practice in the Eastern District of Arkansas, the first-filed case, Perez v. City of Osceola et al., Case No. 3:14CV00066, is designated as the lead case. All pleadings should be filed in that case.
Additionally, Perez's motion to amend [Doc. No. 19] and his motion for settlement [Doc. No. 21] are denied. His motion to consolidate [Doc. No. 23] is denied as moot. Defendants' motion for leave to depose Perez [Doc. No. 20] is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
