United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SOROKIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
reasons set forth below, the Clerk shall issue summons for
service of the complaints filed in Nos. 17-cv-10509-LTS and
17-cv-10779-LTS and plaintiff shall have 90 days to effect
Hilary Dike filed the following three pro se actions
against his employer: Dike v. Shulkin, No.
16-cv-12547-LTS (filed Dec. 16, 2016); Dike v.
Shulkin, No. 17-cv-10509-LTS (filed Mar. 24, 2017);
Dike v. Shulkin, No. 17-cv-10779-LTS (filed May 2,
2017). Although Dike was permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis in each action, he retained an attorney to
represent him in the 2016 action. See ECF #13,
16-cv-12547-LTS (Notice of Appearance).
Electronic Orders dated June 8, 2017, Dike was ordered, among
other things, to show cause (1) why the two 2017 actions
should not be consolidated with his 2016 action; and (2)
after consolidation dismiss the 2017 actions as duplicate,
but without prejudice to Dike seeking leave to amend.
See ECF #8, 17-cv-10509-LTS; ECF #5,
was granted until June 29, 2017 to file his show cause
response. The Court's records indicate that Dike filed a
show cause response in 17-cv-10509-LTS. See ECF
#12, 17-cv-10509-LTS. Dike's show cause response states,
among other things, that his attorney filed a document in the
2016 action asking that 17-cv-10509-LTS not be consolidated
with the 2016 action because “the actions raise new
claims” and “most importantly, [Dike's)
current attorney has heavy workload and do[es] not have the
resources to take additional case.” Id. For
the same reasons, Dike states that 17-cv-10779-LTS should not
be consolidated with the 2016 action. Id. Dike
attached two exhibits to his show cause response: (1) a copy
of the show cause response filed by his attorney in the 2016
action; and (2) a copy of the complaint filed in
17-cv-10509-LTS, including the civil cover and category
Court reviewed Dike's three Title VII complaints and it
is not clear whether the claims are sufficiently related for
consolidation. Dike alleges exhaustion of his administrative
remedies in his first two actions: Dike v. Shulkin,
No. 16-cv-12547-LTS (filed Dec. 16, 2016) (Dike filed
administrative actions with the EEOC in 2014 and 2015);
Dike v. Shulkin, No. 17-cv- 10509-LTS (filed Mar.
24, 2017) (Dike filed an administrative action with the EEOC
in 2016). The third complaint filed by Dike, Dike v.
Shulkin, No. 17-cv-10779-LTS (filed May 2, 2017),
alleges just one adverse employment action on April 24, 2015,
and there is no allegation of the filing of an administrative
claim. Additionally, the Court reviewed the show cause
response that was filed in the 2016 case by Attorney Castel.
See ECF #19, 16-cv-12547-LTS, Among other things,
Castel avers that he was not aware of the 2017 pro
se actions and that he is mindful of his professional
responsibility to avoid any foreseeable prejudice to
Dike's rights in the pro se actions.
light of the fact that counsel will not represent Dike in the
2017 cases, and despite the fact that Dike failed to file a
reply in No. 17-cv-10779-LTS, the Clerk will direct the Clerk
to issue summons for service of the pro se
complaints that were filed in C.A. Nos. 17-cv-10509-LTS and
17-cv-10779-LTS. Dike shall ensure that in each action, the
summons and complaint is served in accordance with Rule 4 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because he has been
permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, he may ask
the United States Marshals Service to complete service in
both actions. The Court may revisit the issue of
consolidation at some future time.
foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that
Clerk shall issue summons in C.A. Nos. 17-cv-10509-LTS and
plaintiff shall ensure that a summons and copy of each
complaint is served on the defendant in accordance with Rule
4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff has
90 days from the date of this Order to effect service.
Because the plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis, he may ask the United States Marshals Service
to complete service, with all ...