# Harrell v. California State University

> District Court, N.D. California · January 5, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10077634

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** January 5, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10077634

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 JOSHUA HARRELL, Case No. 23-cv-02210-PCP

8 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
9 v. DISMISS AND GRANTING MOTION
TO AMEND COMPLAINT
10 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, et Dkt. Nos. 14, 44
11 al.,
Defendants.
12
13 Pro se plaintiff Joshua Harrell filed this civil rights lawsuit against the Board of Trustees of
14 the California State University (CSU) and eight individual CSU employees. Defendants moved to
15 dismiss, after which Harrell moved to amend his complaint. For the reasons that follow, the Court
16 denies defendants’ motion to dismiss and grants Harrell’s motion to amend.
17 BACKGROUND
18 Harrell was a student at San Jose State University (SJSU). His claims arise from two
19 distinct incidents.
20 First, on April 20, 2022, after Harrell completed a midterm exam at SJSU’s Alternative
21 Testing Center, defendants Sanchez-Ortega, Khanaka, Bravo, and Villavelasquez-Hill allegedly
22 unlawfully took his exam notes from him. (The notes were soon returned to him at his professor’s
23 request.) His conduct was referred to the Student Conduct and Ethical Development office, where
24 defendant Hutton resolved the issue on May 23, 2022 with only a warning.
25 Second, on June 3, 2022, while Harrell was studying in a building on campus after it had
26 closed, he was purportedly arrested for trespass by defendants Lee and Zonsius. Resolution of the
27 incident took several months as Harrell communicated with defendant Day, SJSU’s Vice President
1 Harrell asserts 13 claims arising from these two incidents in his complaint: (1) conversion;
2 (2) deprivation of property without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;
3 (3) discrimination based on disability; (4) retaliation based on protected First Amendment activity;
4 (5) retaliation against opposition to unlawful activity; (6) wrongful use of administrative
5 proceedings; (7) unlawful arrest without a warrant; (8) unreasonable search and seizure in
6 violation of the Fourth Amendment; (9) failure to encourage education by suitable means;
7 (10) denial of the right to attend a safe, secure, and peaceful campus; (11) denial of Equal
8 Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment; (12) breach of contract; and (13) intentional
9 infliction of emotional distress.
10 Harrell asserts claims (1), (2), and (6) against CSU, SJSU, and defendants Sanchez-Ortega,
11 Khanaka, Bravo, and Villavelasquez-Hill. He asserts claims (3), (4), and (5) against CSU, SJSU,
12 and defendants Sanchez-Ortega, Khanaka, Bravo, Villavelasquez-Hill, and Hutton. Harrell asserts
13 claims (7) and (8) against defendants Lee and Zonsius and claim (9) against CSU, SJSU, and
14 defendants Lee, Zonsius, Day, and Hutton. He asserts claims (10), (11), and (13) against all
15 defendants. Finally, he asserts claim (12) against CSU, SJSU, and defendant Day.
16 In defendants’ motion to dismiss, they argue: (i) Harrell fails to make a short and plain
17 statement of his claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2); (ii) the complaint should be
18 dismissed because it improperly joins unrelated parties for unrelated events, in violation of Federal
19 Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20; and (iii) if the complaint is not dismissed, Harrell should be
20 required to provide a more definitive statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).
21 Harrell opposes defendants’ motion while also moving to amend his complaint. In his proposed
22 amended complaint, Harrell seeks to add CSU and SJSU as defendants to claims (7) and (8). Dkt.
23 No. 44-2. He also seeks to rephrase claim (11) as discrimination based on student status and to
24 assert the revised claim against only CSU, SJSU, and defendants Lee, Zonsius, Day, and Hutton.
25 Finally, he seeks to add a claim for arbitrary discrimination against CSU, SJSU, and defendants
26 Lee, Zonsius, Day, and Hutton.
27 STANDARD OF REVIEW
1 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “All
2 pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(f). Pro se complaints
3 are “to be liberally construed,” and “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
4 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 governs permissive joinder of claims and allows a
6 party to join “as many claims as it has against an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Rule 18
7 was designed to “make trials as efficient, expeditious and inexpensive as fairness will permit.”
8 United States v. 93.970 Acres of Land, 360 U.S. 328, 332 (1959); see also Bruckman v. Hollzer,
9 152 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1946). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 governs permissive joinder
10 of parties and allows persons to be joined as defendants in one action if “any right to relief is
11 asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the
12 same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and “any question of law or
13 fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). “Rule 20 is
14 designed to promote judicial economy, and reduce inconvenience, delay, and added expense.”
15 Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997). “Under the Rules, the impulse is toward
16 entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of
17 claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged.” United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs,
18 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966).
19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 permits a party to “move for a more definite statement
20 of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that
21 the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). “Motions for a more
22 definite statement are viewed with disfavor, and are rarely granted.” Cellars v. Pacific Coast
23 Packaging, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999). “[T]he proper test in evaluating a motion
24 under Rule 12(e) is whether the complaint provides the defendant with a sufficient basis to frame
25 his responsive pleadings.” Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Musacchio, 695 F. Supp. 1053, 1060
26 (N.D. Cal. 1988).
27 A party may amend its pleading either with the consent of the opposing party or with leave
1 Id. Factors that the Court considers are undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive by the movant,
2 repeated failure to cure deficiencies by prior amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party,
3 and futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Ultimately, the “grant or
4 denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court.” Id.
5 ANALYSIS
6 I. Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Is Denied.
7 A. Harrell Adequately States Claims Under Rule 8.
8 Defendants contend that Harrell has failed to comply with the pleading standards set forth
9 in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Construing Harrell’s claims liberally given his pro se
10 status, all thirteen claims meet the requirements set forth in Rule 8. Harrell expressly followed the
11 model causes of action set forth in California’s Civil Jury Instructions in asserting several of his
12 claims, Dkt. No. 45, at 2, and all of his claims contain a “short and plain statement” of the reasons
13 he believes he is entitled to relief. Defendants argue that Harrell provides “excessive detail” about
14 the underlying events and “needlessly, exhaustively and improperly imputes malicious intent” in
15 his complaint. Dkt. No. 14, at 6. But as Harrell notes, Rule 8 requires that the plaintiff at a
16 minimum plead a short and plain statement, not that the plaintiff can only plead a short and plain
17 statement. A lengthy complaint alone does not constitute a violation of Rule 8. Rather, by
18 providing additional detail, Harrell simply goes beyond the requirements set forth in Rule 8 while
19 nonetheless satisfying the applicable standard.
20 B. Harrell Properly Joins Claims Under Rules 18 and 20.
21 Defendants also argue that Harrell is improperly joining unrelated claims and parties from
22 two distinct events in one proceeding in violation of Rules 18 and 20.1 But Rule 18 permits Harrell
23 to join claims arising from the separate April 20 and June 3 incidents if those claims are asserted
24 against the same defendant or defendants, while Rule 20 permits joinder of multiple defendants in
25 a single action if a right to relief against them arises out of the “same transaction, occurrence, or
26

27
1 Defendants request dismissal of the case under Rules 18 and 20 but “[m]isjoinder of parties is
1 series of transactions or occurrences” and presents a common question of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ.
2 P. 20(a)(2). Taken together, these rules permit Harrell to pursue all of the claims at issue here in a
3 single lawsuit.
4 Claims (10) and (13), alleging a denial of Harrell’s right to attend a safe, secure, and
5 peaceful campus and intentional infliction of emotional distress, are asserted against all defendants
6 (including in the proposed amended complaint) and present common issues of law arising from
7 both the April 20 and June 3 incidents. Further, the two incidents are temporally proximate and
8 both allegedly demonstrate a trend of aggressive behavior by CSU employees towards Harrell—
9 thereby at least arguably presenting a “series of transactions or occurrences” properly considered
10 in the same lawsuit. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, Harrell’s amended complaint (which
11 the Court permits for the reasons set forth below), asserts each claim against both CSU and SJSU.
12 The inclusion of all of those claims in a single lawsuit is therefore permissible under Rule 18, and
13 Rule 20 permits Harrell to add additional individual defendants to each of those claims against
14 CSU and SJSU to the extent that the alleged facts support asserting such a claim.
15 C. Harrell Need Not Provide a More Definitive Statement Under Rule 12(e).
16 Finally, defendants argue that in light of the “numerous incidents involving a mishmash of
17 different defendants,” the complaint “fails to clearly or succinctly describe any conduct that
18 [d]efendants can reasonably defend against.” Dkt. No. 14, at 8. But to meet the high standard for
19 obtaining relief under Rule 12(e), defendants must show that they lack “a sufficient basis to frame
20 [their] responsive pleadings.” Musacchio, 695 F. Supp. at 1060. Here, Harrell provides a plethora
21 of detail about the underlying factual circumstances and specifically delineates which claims
22 arising from the two incidents he asserts against which defendants. Harrell need do no more.
23 II. Harrell’s Motion To Amend Is Granted.
24 Harrell separately moves to amend his complaint for the first time under Rule 15(a).
25 Defendants do not oppose the motion. Because this is Harrell’s first request to amend and there is
26 evidence of neither undue delay nor bad faith, the Court grants the motion.
27 CONCLUSION
1 Harrell’s motion to amend. The Clerk shall file the First Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 44-1, and
2 || defendants shall file a responsive pleading or Rule 12(b) motion addressing Harrell’s amended
3 complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of this Order.
4
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 || Dated: January 5, 2024 Ze
7 t Co
P. Casey Pitts
8 United States District Judge
9
10
11
12

13

15
16

= 17

Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10077634. Public record. Not legal advice.