Block v. United States Government

Background

Waylen Block filed an earlier case, No. 23-CV-0127, and later filed No. 23-CV-2873. The amended complaint in the earlier case asserted constitutional claims against the defendants named there. The later complaint asserted claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which provides a framework for certain claims against the United States based on federal employees’ conduct. The factual allegations in the two complaints were essentially identical.

Block filed identical motions asking the court to consolidate the two cases. The defendants in No. 23-CV-0127 took no position on consolidation. The court noted that the United States Government named in the earlier case was presumably the same entity Block called the United States in the later case, but the court did not resolve that issue in this order.

Consolidation and briefing schedule

Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the court found that the cases shared clear factual overlap and that consolidation would simplify their administration. It granted Block’s motions to consolidate as discussed in the order and consolidated the cases for pretrial and trial purposes. No. 23-CV-0127 became the lead case. Future filings were required to be filed only in that case, and the Clerk was directed to refile the complaint from No. 23-CV-2873 in the lead case. The court directed the Clerk to administratively close No. 23-CV-2873.

The court allowed the amended complaint in No. 23-CV-0127 to remain in place and stated that, going forward, it would be understood as presenting one or more FTCA claims in addition to the constitutional claims already asserted. The court did not decide whether any of those claims would ultimately succeed or whether they could proceed.

The court vacated the prior briefing order in No. 23-CV-0127 and replaced it with new deadlines. Defendants’ supplemental brief addressing the asserted FTCA claims was due December 29, 2023. Block’s response to the original motion to dismiss and the supplemental brief was due January 26, 2024. Defendants’ reply briefs were due 14 days after Block filed his response.

Other motions and dispositions

The court denied Block’s motion to compel a response because the defendants had timely filed their motion to dismiss.

The court denied Block’s motions to reconsider appointment of counsel, without prejudice to filing another such motion as the case proceeded. Although the court recognized that the case was more procedurally complicated and acknowledged Block’s statement that his visual disability slowed his legal work, it found that he had presented his positions and allegations clearly and that the relevant factors did not then favor appointing counsel.

The court denied Block’s motion to amend the amended complaint without prejudice because the motion did not comply with the District of Minnesota’s local rules. Specifically, Block had not filed a meet-and-confer statement, a memorandum of law, or a proposed amended complaint. The court stated that it would consider a later motion complying with those rules.

The court denied as moot Block’s motion to extend his deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss because the court established a new briefing schedule. It also denied as moot Block’s motion to correct a filing error in No. 23-CV-2873 because the court was already treating that complaint as asserting FTCA claims.

Result

The order consolidated the two cases and managed the next stage of briefing, but it did not rule on the pending motion to dismiss or decide the merits of Block’s constitutional or FTCA claims. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty.