United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the Motion to Consolidate filed
by Plaintiff Carl “Tay Tay” Tate (Doc. 255). Tate
seeks to consolidate this case with Tay Tay v.
Baldwin, No. 19-CV-501-NJR-MAB. Although the two cases
are based on distinct legal theories, Tate argues there is a
sufficient factual nexus between the claims in that both
cases are based on Defendants' failure to adequately
treat her gender dysphoria and recognize her as a transgender
woman. Accordingly, consolidation is appropriate to avoid
unnecessary costs and delay.
IDOC Defendants object to consolidation, arguing that the two
cases contain different allegations against different
Defendants for actions that occurred years apart (Doc. 260).
Moreover, the cases are in varying stages of litigation,
considering discovery is complete in this case, and
dispositive motions were due August 12, 2019. In contrast,
responsive pleadings in the Tay Tay case are not
even due yet. The IDOC Defendants assert they will be
prejudiced if Tate is permitted to conduct further discovery
in this case months after the passage of the fact discovery
Wexford Defendants also oppose consolidation (Doc. 262). They
argue that the claims in the two cases are based on separate
facts, seek different relief, and are against different
Defendants. In fact, they argue, there are no Wexford
Defendants in the Tay Tay case. Furthermore, while
Tate claims that the two cases are at comparable stages of
discovery due to delays in this case, the Wexford Defendants
note that Tate adequately represented herself through summary
judgment on exhaustion and was zealously represented by two
appointed attorneys. Any delay in the case is more likely due
to Plaintiff amending the complaint three times-and being
denied leave to amend a fourth and fifth time to add more
counts and more parties. Because the Tay Tay case
involves new issues, defendants, and causes of action that
are irrelevant to the allegations and time period in this
case, they argue, the cases should not be consolidated.
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
“[i]f 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 (3) issue any other orders to
avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a).
District judges exercise broad discretion in determining
whether cases should be consolidated. Canedy v.
Boardman, 16 F.3d 183, 185 (7th Cir. 1994).
Consolidation of cases may not be appropriate when the cases
involve claims related to different time periods. See
King v. Gen. Elec. Co., 960 F.2d 617, 626 (7th Cir.
1992) (“We conclude, because of the different
allegations and time frames, the district court abused its
discretion by consolidating these actions.”).
Court does not find consolidation of the actions appropriate
here. This case centers on Tate's claims that Defendants
failed to provide adequate medical care with regard to her
gender dysphoria and mental health needs while she was housed
at Western, Centralia, and Shawnee correctional centers. She
also alleges Defendants failed to protect her from harassment
and assault by other inmates, as well as Defendants Bailey
and Crawford, while she was incarcerated at Centralia (Doc.
Tay Tay, however, she alleges a different set of
IDOC defendants (with the exception of Warden Jeff Dennison):
violated her constitutional rights and the ADA by
discriminating against her, failing to protect her as a
transgender woman in a men's prison, and refusing to
transfer her to a women's prison; violated the Due
Process Clause by involuntarily transferring her to Elgin in
2019 without a hearing; retaliated against her protected
First Amendment activity by requiring her to go to Menard in
2019 to appear at her hearing and by transferring her to
Elgin; maintained unconstitutional policies, practices, and
customs related to transgender prisoners; and intentionally
inflicted emotional distress (Doc. 64).
there is some overlap with regard to the general background
of these two cases, i.e., both are related to
Tate's gender dysphoria, the facts underlying Tate's
actual claims are different. Moreover, this case was filed
more than three years ago against Defendants who are not part
of the Tay Tay litigation. Prolonging this case
against them- especially the Wexford Defendants-would be
prejudicial, cause unfair delay, and require them to expend
additional resources on a case in which they are not
involved. The Court agrees with the Wexford Defendants:
“at some point a case must be allowed to
resolve.” (Doc. 262).
these reasons, the Motion to Consolidate filed by Plaintiff
(Doc. 255) is DENIED. Because both cases
generally result from Plaintiffs gender dysphoria diagnosis,
however, the Court has joined the motion for preliminary
injunction pending in each case for a hearing at 9
a.m. on September 25, 2019.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Defendants filed a joint motion for
extension of time to file dispositive motions, which is
pending as of the date of ...