The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary R. Jones United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is Doc. 17, Respondent's Motion to Consolidate and Motion for Enlargement of Time in Which to File a Consolidated Response. Petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the federal Bureau of Prisons at FCI-Marianna, initiated this case by filing a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241 on April 4, 2011 (Doc. 1). Plaintiff challenges the execution of his sentence, arguing that his sentence should be modified to account for the term of imprisonment he served on his state conviction prior to being transferred back into federal custody to serve the remainder of his sentence. On September 13, 2011, this Court issued an order directing service of Petitioner's Amended Petition (Doc. 8) and requiring a response from Respondent on or before November 14, 2011. (Doc. 12). However, the docket entry by the Clerk indicates that the initial Petition (Doc. 1) was served instead.
Meanwhile, Petitioner filed a virtually identical § 2241 petition in this Court on July 7, 2011. (NDFL Case No. 5:11-cv-232-MP-EMT). Magistrate Judge Elizabeth M. Timothy issued an order directing service of the Amended Petition (Doc. 6) in that case on September 7, 2011, requiring a response on or before November 7, 2011. The facts and claims in both cases are virtually identical, and Petitioner names the same Defendant in both cases.*fn1
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part, that "If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions." A district court's decision to consolidate is purely discretionary,*fn2 but in exercising that discretion the court should consider (1) whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion are overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, (2) the burden on parties, (3) witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, (4) the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and (5) the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives.*fn3
Having considered these issues, the undersigned concludes that consolidation of Robinson v. Augustine, Case. No. 5:11-cv-232-MP-EMT, with the above-styled case would conserve judicial resources and permit the efficient and expeditious resolution of Petitioner's claims.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Respondent's Motion to Consolidate and Motion for Enlargement of Time in Which to File a Consolidated Response (Doc. 17) is GRANTED. Robinson v. Augustine, Case. No. 5:11-cv-232-MP-EMT, is consolidated with the above-styled case for all further proceedings. All further filings should be made in this case. The Clerk is directed to make the appropriate notations on the docket reflecting that Robinson v. Augustine, Case. No. 5:11-cv-232-MP-EMT has been consolidated with this case for all further proceedings.
2. The Clerk shall furnish by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the Amended Petition, Doc. 8, and this order to the Respondent, the United States Attorney General, and the United States Attorney for this district, who shall file a consolidated response on or before December 14, 2011.
3. Petitioner shall have until January 13, 2012, to file a reply, if desired.