IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 1, 2010
ALVIN J. SCHROEDER, PLAINTIFF,
JAMES A. YATES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER STRIKING FIRST AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
ORDER STRIKING SECOND AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
ORDER STRIKING MOTIONS FOR TIMELY HEARING AND IMMEDIATE DECISION.
(Docs. 9, 11)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ADD CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS
I. Procedural History
On December 28, 2009, Plaintiff Alvin J. Schroeder, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 21, 2010, Plaintiff filed an incomplete amendment which sought to add a new count and two additional defendants. On May 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a timely hearing. On May 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed another amendment which sought to add an additional defendant. On June 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for immediate decision. Lastly, on August 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to add as defendants Dr. Green, Dr. Rahimi and Correctional Officer Catlett and add additional unrelated claims associated with these individuals.
II. Amendments Not in Compliance with Local Rule 220
According to Local Rule 220:
[E]very pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. No pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule has been complied with.
All changed pleadings shall contain copies of all exhibits referred to in the changed pleading.
Local Rule 220. Plaintiff's amendments are not complete without necessitating reference to prior pleadings. Accordingly, Plaintiff's first and second amendments are HEREBY STRICKEN from the record, and within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint which complies with the above-mentioned Local Rule 220.
III. Motions for Immediate Decision and Timely Hearing
As mentioned in the first informational order to the Plaintiff, this case will be addressed "in due course" and all pretrial motions will be submitted without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). Therefore, Plaintiff's motions for a timely hearing and immediate decision are HEREBY STRICKEN from the record.
IV. Application of Rule 18 to Multiple, Unrelated Claims and Parties
Under Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff may not pursue multiple, unrelated claims and parties in this action. As the Seventh Circuit observed in George v. Smith:
The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): 'A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has against an opposing party.' Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Since Plaintiff's request to add Dr. Green, Dr. Rahimi and Correctional Officer Catlett as defendants requires adding unrelated claims, Plaintiff's request is HEREBY DENIED.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's first and second amendments are HEREBY STRICKEN from the record, and within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint which complies with Local Rule 220;
2. Plaintiff's motions for a timely hearing and immediate decision are HEREBY STRICKEN from the record.
3. Plaintiff's request to add unrelated claims through adding Dr. Green, Dr. Rahimi and Correctional Officer Catlett as defendants is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.