United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO JOIN DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS
[ECF NOS. 21, 26]; ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR
COPIES [ECF NO. 29]
Ruben B. Brooks United States Magistrate Judge.
Keith Wayne Sekerke, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a
Motion to Join Defendants and Joinder of Claims, construed by
the Court as a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint [ECF No. 21]; a Joinder of Claims, which the Court
construes as a motion for joinder of claims [ECF No. 26]; and
an Ex Parte Notice of Retaliation and Request for Duplicate
Orders [ECF No. 29]. For the reasons set forth below,
Plaintiff's motions for leave to file a second amended
complaint and for joinder of claims are DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and his request for duplicate
copies is GRANTED.
First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that he suffers
from health conditions requiring pain medications. (First Am.
Compl. 4, ECF No. 7.) Sekerke contends that the San Diego
Central Jail, where he is currently incarcerated, has a
blanket policy of refusing to provide narcotics to inmates in
violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that
Defendants Arturo Leon, M.D. (erroneously sued as Arturo
Leo), Mark O'Brien, M.D., and Sheriff William Gore
violated his right to adequate medical care by complying with
this policy. (Id. at 3, 4.) Plaintiff further
alleges that he was denied the right to adequate medical care
when he developed a MRSA infection the day after arriving at the
jail. (Id. at 15.) He claims that the San Diego
County Sheriff's Department's policy of refusing to
provide bed sheets to cover "well used mattresses"
caused his infection. (Id.) He contends that
Defendant Gore is responsible for this policy and that
Defendant Leon refused to provide any treatment for
Plaintiff's condition. (Id.)
motion for leave to join defendants and file a second amended
complaint, Sekerke seeks to add four additional defendants to
this action: Barbara Lee, Sheriff Deputy D. Olsen, Sergeant
A. Sevilla, and Lieutenant Laura Coyne. (Mot. Join Defs. 1,
ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff contends that Lee, as the
Sheriff's Department's Medical Administrator, is
responsible for the blanket policy of denying narcotic pain
medications to all inmates, and she denied him medical
treatment that had been prescribed by a jail physician.
(Id. at 2-3.) Additionally, Sekerke alleges that
following the service of his complaint upon the three
defendants currently named in this case, jail employees
Olsen, Sevilla, and Coyne retaliated against Sekerke by
placing him in administrative segregation. (Id. at
3-5.) Defendant Gore filed an opposition to Plaintiff's
motion in accordance with a briefing schedule issued by the
Court [ECF No. 24]. Plaintiff filed a reply [ECF No. 27].
motion for joinder of claims, Sekerke seeks to add a claim
against Leon, O'Brien, and Lee for denying him copies of
his medical records. (Mot. [Joinder Claims] 1, ECF No. 26.)
He also appears to allege that he has been denied medical
treatment in retaliation for filing this lawsuit.
(Id. at 1-3.) The Court did not issue a briefing
schedule on this motion.
Ex Parte Notice of Retaliation and Request for Duplicate
Orders, filed on October 9, 2019, is illegible in part but
appears to allege that Sekerke was strip-searched in
retaliation for his lawsuits and complaints. (Notice
Retaliation & Req. 2-4, ECF No. 29.) He also claims that
documents are missing from his cell as a result of it being
searched and requests copies of "all the filings and
court orders since July 2019." (Id. at 2, 6.)
Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and
Motion for Joinder of Claims
cannot add new defendants or claims to this case by filing a
Joinder of Claims or an Ex Parte Notice of Retaliation.
Adding parties requires amending the pleadings. See
4 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal
Practice ¶ 20.02[a][ii], at 20-13 (3d ed. 2019)
("Plaintiff may [bring in additional parties] only by
amending the complaint."). If Plaintiff wishes to add
defendants or claims to this case, he must file a motion for
leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A motion to amend a
pleading must be accompanied by a copy of the proposed
amended pleading. See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 15.1.b.;
see also Spadafore v. Gardner, 330 F.3d 849, 853
(6th Cir. 2003). Here, Plaintiff has filed a document
construed by the Court as a motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint but has failed to provide a copy of his
proposed amended complaint. Accordingly, his motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint and related motion for
joinder of claims are DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff wishes to add defendants and
claims to this case, he must refile a motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint and must attach a copy of the
proposed second amended complaint to the motion.
Plaintiff should note that prisoners are not permitted to
raise all their claims in a single action under Rule 20 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure simply because multiple
incidents of allegedly wrongful conduct involve prison
officials in the same prison. See, e.g., Reed v.
Hinshaw, No. 1:11-cv-00340-AWI-SAB (PC), 2013 WL
3198611, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2013). Rule 20 permits
multiple parties to be joined as defendants in a single
action only if claims are asserted against them jointly or
severally, or arise "out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences"
and "any question of fact or law common to all
defendants will arise in the action." Fed.R.Civ.P.
20(a)(2). Unrelated claims that involve different defendants
must be brought in separate lawsuits. See Reed, 2013
WL 3198611, at *2 (citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d
605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)). Moreover, although Rule 15 permits
a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth
"any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened
after the date of the pleading to be supplemented[, ]"
(see Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d)), a supplemental pleading
may not introduce a "separate, distinct and new cause of
action." Planned Parenthood of S. Arizona v.
Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation
omitted). Supplemental pleadings are a particular concern in
prisoner cases, in which "joining unrelated claims could
result in avoidance of a filing fee or circumvent the [Prison
Litigation Reform Act]'s three strikes rule."
Singleton v. Kernan, Case No.: 3:16-cv-2462-BAS-NLS,
2017 WL 4021536, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2017) (citations
Request for Copies
claims that documents are missing from his cell as a result
of it being searched and requests copies of "all the
filings and court orders since July 2019." (Notice
Retaliation & Req. 2, 6, ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff's
request is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall
provide Plaintiff with copies of the Court's orders
docketed at ECF Nos. 18, 22, and 23. The Court further
DIRECTS Defendant Gore to provide Plaintiff
with an additional copy of his motion to dismiss [ECF No. 13]
and Defendants Leon and O'Brien to provide Plaintiff with
an additional copy of their answer [ECF No. 16].