UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 3, 2012
MATTHEW JAMES DURY, PLAINTIFF,
LT. J. ZARAGOZA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO NOTIFY COURT IF THIS ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED (ECF No. 6) FIFTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Matthew James Dury ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on November 13, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) On November 16, 2012, an order to show cause issued why this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 4.) On November 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause, notice to the Clerk, form declining the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, and motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 5, 6, 8, 11.)
In the notice to the Court, Plaintiff states that he did not intend to file a new action, but this was to be an addendum to Dury v. Copenhaver, No. 1:12-cv-01726-LJO-GSA (PC). Plaintiff may not filed a piecemeal complaint. Every pleading, including a supplemental complaint, must be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading." Local Rule 220. Since Plaintiff has previously filed an amended complaint in Dury v. Copenhaver he needs to seek leave to file an amended complaint in that action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a).
Additionally, Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may bring a claim against multiple defendants so long as (1) the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences, and (2) there are commons questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America, 623 F.3d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). The fact that Plaintiff alleges that his multiple claims are retaliation for filing a grievance against the Warden does not make them related.
Within fifteen days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall notify the Court if this action should be dismissed so he can pursue this claim in Dury v. Copenhaver. If Plaintiff fails to file a timely notice, the application to proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted and this action shall proceed as filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.