UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 16, 2009
JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
WOODFORD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff John Wesley Williams ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.
On January 20, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and Recommendations on February 17, 2009.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In the Objection Plaintiff contends that he has stated a claim against the Defendants that the Magistrate Judge has recommenced dismissal. However, the issue is not whether Plaintiff has stated a claim; This issue is whether Plaintiff's joinder in one action of completely separate incidents involving completely separate Defendants is proper. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that it is improper for the court to resolve this many different factual occurrences involving a multitude of Defendants in one action. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no "buckshot" complaints); Fed.R.Civ.Pro.20(a)(2) (defendants may be joined in one action as defendants if any right to relief is asserted against them arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences); Fed.R.Civ.Pro.18(a) (allowing multiple claims against opposing party but not multiple unrelated claims against different defendants). In this action, the Magistrate Judge choose a Defendant against whom Plaintiff has clearly stated a claim, and the Magistrate Judge ordered service on this Defendant. If Plaintiff believes the complaint states other causes of action against other Defendants, Plaintiff is free to file other complaints concerning each factual pattern containing a common nucleus of operative facts. Thus, the objections present no grounds to not adopt the Findings and Recommendation.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 20, 2009, is adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed against Defendant Vasquez for violation of the First Amendment; and
3. The remaining claims are dismissed, without prejudice, for violation of Rule 18(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.