United States District Court, S.D. Illinois, Benton Division
June 8, 2005.
LINDA FIELDS, et al., Plaintiffs,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiffs' Motion to
Reconsider (Doc. 17) the Court's October 15, 2004, order denying
their motion to consolidate this case with Fletcher v. Illinois
Department of Corrections, Case No. 04-cv-153-GPM, which has
since been consolidated into Walker v. Illinois Department of
Corrections, Case No. 03-cv-857-WDS. The Court originally denied
the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 42(a), finding that this case and Fletcher, now
consolidated into Walker, do not involve substantially common
issues of fact and that therefore consolidation would not serve
the interest of justice or judicial economy. The Illinois
Department of Corrections continues to object to the
consolidation (Doc. 18).
Reconsideration of a court's ruling is not expressly authorized
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is conducted at the
discretion of the court. Courts have recognized that occasionally
they misunderstand the parties and make errors of fact or of law.
Parties should be allowed to bring such errors to the court's
attention to give the court the opportunity to correct them.
In this case, the plaintiffs have presented no new evidence or
argument to convince the Court that its original ruling on the plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate was in error or that circumstances have changed such
that a new result is warranted. Judge Herndon's recent noting of
the general rule that related cases sharing common issues should
be transferred or consolidated before a single judge is not
persuasive with regard to the pending motion, which seeks to
consolidate cases that are not substantially factually related.
See Buller Trucking Co. v. Owner Operator Indep. Driver Risk
Retention Grp., Case No. 05-cv-165-DHR, Doc. No. 33. For this
reason, the Court DENIES the Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 17).
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.