Thomas v. Garcia et al

Filing 227

ORDER Construing Michael Key Jr's Letter as a Request for Relief; ORDER Denying Key's 226 Request for Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 08/05/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEAN-PIERRE K. THOMAS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

M.P. GARCIA,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

21
22

25
26
27
28

ORDER CONSTRUING MICHAEL KEY, JR’S
LETTER AS A REQUEST FOR RELIEF
ORDER DENYING KEY’S REQUEST FOR
RELIEF
(Doc. 226)

Bakersfield, California. Inmate Michael Key, Jr., appeared and testified on Plaintiff’s behalf on July
23, 2013, pursuant to the Court’s Order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. (Docs. 166 and
213).
Presently, inmate Key, a nonparty witness, seeks relief from the “constant harassment from

23
24

Case No.: 1:08-cv-00689 – JLT (PC)

A jury trial was held in this matter between July 23 and 25, 2013, in the U.S. District Court in

19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

correction officers (sic)” generated by his appearance at this trial. (Doc. 226 at 1). Key reports that
Corcoran prison personnel are “wrongly subjecting (sic) [him] [to] Corcoran’s Administrative
[Segregation] unit.” Id. He requests that the Court order the CDCR to return him to CSP-Sacramento.
Id.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) permits third parties to join as a plaintiff in a matter if: “(A) they assert

1

1

any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same

2

transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact

3

common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.” According to the Ninth Circuit, Fed. R. Civ. P. 20

4

must be interpreted liberally to avoid multiple lawsuits. League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg'l

5

Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977). However, where the two elements present in

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) are lacking, a district court may require severance of a would-be plaintiff.

7

Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997) (“joined plaintiffs fail to meet both of these

8

requirements, the district court may sever the misjoined plaintiffs, as long as no substantial right will

9

be prejudiced by the severance.”)

10

Key appears to request relief in a matter to which he is not a party. His claim of retaliation

11

bears no relation to Plaintiff’s claim arising from an alleged excessive use of force on October 6, 2006

12

and bears no common question of law or fact to Plaintiff Eighth Amendment claim. Moreover, the

13

Court lacks any jurisdiction to address the relief requested. Though the Court does not condone

14

retaliation against a witness, the Court does not control the CDCR’s decision as to where an inmate is

15

housed and has no authority to require that agency to take any particular action.

16

Accordingly, Key’s request for relief (Doc. 226) is DENIED.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 5, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2