noting that if joined plaintiffs fail to meet requirements of Rule 20(a), “the district court may sever the misjoined plaintiffs, as long as no substantial right will be prejudiced by the severance”
How later courts described this case
- noting that if joined plaintiffs fail to meet requirements of Rule 20(a), “the district court may sever the misjoined plaintiffs, as long as no substantial right will be prejudiced by the severance”
- district court may dismiss an action with prejudice due to a litigant’s failure to comply with Rule 8(a) if meaningful, less drastic sanctions have been explored
- complaints that are “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant” and that “consist[] largely of immaterial background information” are subject to dismissal under Rule 8
- noting that unrelated claims against different defendants should be brought in different lawsuits, in part to prevent prisoners from circumventing filing-fee requirements and three-strikes rule under Prison Litigation Reform Act
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JONATHAN JASON RODRIGUEZ,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00441-AC
Plaintiff,
ORDER TO DISMISS
v.
BRIGITTE AMSBERRY; WARD KING;
D. PEDRO; LIEUTENANT JASON DUCHEK;
SCHOTTS; HILLMICK; FRANK SERRANO;
KAMMERZELL; EDDY; POPE; HAZEN;
S. BROWN; E. ANDERSON; HEATHER NEVIL;
T. HART; TURNER; J. CUNA; BRADY; and
N. SOBOTTA,
Defendants.
IMMERGUT, J.
Plaintiff, an adult in custody at the Snake River Correctional Institution (“SRCI”), brings this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to an Order previously entered in this case,
the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. However, for the reasons
set forth below, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint.
1 - ORDER TO DISMISS
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Complaint is a 57-page, 200+ paragraph narrative of events which occurred over
the course of several months of plaintiff’s incarceration at SRCI during 2018. Plaintiff names 19
individual defendants. His narrative statement covers incidents involving the use of force against
plaintiff, disciplinary proceedings against him, verbal harassment from various defendants, apparent
denial of medical care, retaliation, and denial of the right to petition the government for redress of
grievances. By way of relief, plaintiff seeks money damages, as well as expungement of the various
disciplinary proceedings described in the Complaint.
STANDARDS
A district court must dismiss an action initiated by a prisoner seeking redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee, if the Court determines that the action (i) is frivolous
or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b).
When a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and afford the
plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Moreover, before
dismissing a pro se civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, the court supplies the plaintiff
with a statement of the complaint’s deficiencies. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839
F.2d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir. 1988); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). A pro se
litigant will be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is clear that the deficiencies of
the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623; Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
2 - ORDER TO DISMISS
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] civil action is commenced
by filing a complaint with the court.” Pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” “Each allegation must be simple, concise and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(d)(1). If the factual elements of a cause of action are scattered throughout the complaint but are
not organized into a “short and plain statement of the claim,” dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a)
is proper. Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Nevijel v.
North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (district court may dismiss an action
with prejudice due to a litigant’s failure to comply with Rule 8(a) if meaningful, less drastic
sanctions have been explored); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (complaints
that are “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant” and that “consist[]
largely of immaterial background information” are subject to dismissal under Rule 8); Cafasso,
United States ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011)
(citing cases upholding Rule 8 dismissals where pleadings were “verbose,” “confusing,” “distracting,
ambiguous, and unintelligible,” “highly repetitious,” and comprised of “incomprehensible
rambling”). Plaintiff’s Complaint does not satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 3 or Rule 8.
Moreover, a basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit when they are against the
same defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to join multiple
defendants to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the
3 - ORDER TO DISMISS
action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). In contrast, unrelated claims against different defendants must be
brought in separate lawsuits to avoid confusion and prevent “the sort of morass [a multiple claim,
multiple defendant] suit produce[s].” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting
that unrelated claims against different defendants should be brought in different lawsuits, in part to
prevent prisoners from circumventing filing-fee requirements and three-strikes rule under Prison
Litigation Reform Act); Medina Chiprez v. Becerra, Case No. 20-cv-00307-YGR (PR), 2020 WL
4284825, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2020) (“while multiple claims against a single party may be
alleged in a single complaint, unrelated claims against different defendants must be alleged in
separate complaints”); Gonzalez v. Maldonado, No. 1:11-cv-01774-SAB (PC), 2013 WL 4816038,
at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2013) (same). If the test for permissive joinder is not satisfied, the court
“may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party” and “may also sever any claim against a party.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; see also Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that
if joined plaintiffs fail to meet requirements of Rule 20(a), “the district court may sever the misjoined
plaintiffs, as long as no substantial right will be prejudiced by the severance”); Medina Chiprez,
2020 WL 4284825, at *1 (“[t]he court, on its own initiative, may dismiss misjoined parties from an
action, and any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately”).
Plaintiff’s myriad claims against multiple defendants do not satisfy the requirements of Rule
20(a) for permissive joinder. Plaintiff asserts 25 different claims against 19 separate defendants.
Many of these claims and defendants have no apparent relation to one another. For example,
plaintiff alleges he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment during separate incidents which
occurred on March 26, 2018, and May 25, 2018, each involving different officers, and he alleges
that he was denied due process in two separate, unrelated disciplinary proceedings conducted by two
4 - ORDER TO DISMISS
different hearings officers which took place on April 3, 2018, and June 7, 2018. Accordingly, if
plaintiff chooses to file an Amended Complaint to include all of these defendants whose claims are
entirely unrelated to each other, the claims will be severed into separate actions, each of which will
be subject to the filing fee requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).'
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff may file an
Amended Complaint, curing the deficiencies noted above, within 30 days of the date of this order.
In any Amended Complaint, Plaintiff should identify the nature of each separate legal claim and
confine his allegations to only those operative facts supporting each of his claims. Plaintiff is
advised that failure to file an Amended Complaint within the time provided will result in the
dismissal of this proceeding, with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this Ist_ day of October, 2020.
: : wr.
Karin J. Intmergut z
United States District Judge
‘Requiring Plaintiff to pay additional filing fees is a result of having misjoined claims and
“is not a result of prejudice from the application of the permissive joinder rules.” Funtanilla v.
Tristan, Case No. 1:02-CV-06001-OWW-GSA (PC), 2010 WL 1267133, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30,
2010).
5 - ORDER TO DISMISS