Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Washington v. Fresno County Sheriff

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 24, 2014

PERRY WASHINGTON, et al, Plaintiffs,
v.
FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, DISMISSING, ANTHONIA WASHINGTON AS A PLAINTIFF, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATOR, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO PROCEED AS A CLASS ACTION, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR TRANSFER TO FEDERAL CUSTODY (ECF Nos. 16, 26, 39.)

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 26)

ANTHONY W. ISHII, District Judge.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Anthonia Washington and Perry Washington filed an unsigned complaint in this action on January 29, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) The action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 3, 2014, the unsigned complaint was stricken from the record. (ECF No. 4.)

Plaintiffs filed a signed complaint on February 11, 2014. (ECF No. 11.) On February 18, 2014 the complaint was screened by the Magistrate Judge and dismissed for failure to state a claim. On February 28, 2014, Plaintiff Anthonia Washington filed a motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on April 2, 2014. (ECF No. 27.)

On April 8, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a findings and recommendations which was served on Plaintiffs and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. After receiving several extensions of time, Plaintiff Anthonia Washington filed an objection on July 18, 2014.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The Court's power to "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate" exists whether objections have been filed or not. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist. , 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court will respectfully decline to adopt part of the F&R with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claim. All other parts of the F&R are adopted as described, infra.

II.

ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff Antonia Washington's Objections

1. Plaintiff Anthonia Washington's Claims are Improperly Joined in this Action

Plaintiff Anthonia Washington objects to the recommendation that she be dismissed from this action, arguing that the allegations of abuse by multiple Fresno County agencies over a period of years are related. Plaintiff Anthonia Washington includes extensive new factual allegations in her opposition. However, based on the allegations in the first amended complaint, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the incidents alleged do not arise out of a series of transactions or occurrences, and therefore are not properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18. Similarly, Plaintiff's new allegations of discrimination and retaliation allegedly based on her neighbors efforts to drive the family from their home, even accepted as true, are not related to the claim that was found cognizable in the first amended complaint.

Additionally, the complaint does not allege that any of the incidents involving Plaintiff Perry Washington involved the same defendants and these incidents are therefore not properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Plaintiffs' claims against different defendants for these unrelated incidents may not proceed together in this action.

2. Plaintiff Anthonia Washington Cannot Represent Perry Washington in this Action

Plaintiff Anthonia Washington requests that she be allowed to remain in this action to assist Plaintiff Perry Washington in this action. However, Ms. Washington is not an attorney. A plaintiff, who is not an attorney, may not represent anyone but himself in court. Johns v. County of San Diego , 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997); C. E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States , 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, there are no facts before the court to demonstrate third party standing in this instance. Coalition of Clergy, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.