Garcia v. Joaquin et al

Filing 33

ORDER Denying 29 Motion for Permissive Joinder, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/20/11. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

VICENTE GARCIA,

CASE NO.

1:10-cv-730-AWI-MJS (PC)

10
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

O RD ER D EN YI NG MOT ION
PERMISSIVE JOINDER

F OR

v.
JOAQUIN, et al.,

(ECF No. 29)
Defendants.
/

16
17

Plaintiff Vincente Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court

19

is Plaintiff’s Motion for Permissive Joinder seeking to combine this action with one pending

20

before the Sacramento Division of the Court. (ECF No. 29.)

21
22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2)(B) allows for joinder of defendants if there

23

is “any question of law or fact common to all defendants.” Though both of Plaintiff’s actions

24

involve the common question of whether the prisons’ treatment of his diabetes was

25

constitutionally sufficient, each action has different defendants and revolves around the

26

care provided at different facilities. “[T]he mere fact that ... claims arise under the same

27

general law does not necessarily establish a common question of law or fact.” Coughlin v.

1

Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997).

2

‘individualized attention,’ they do not involve ‘common questions of law or fact.’” Coalition

3

“Where claims require significant

For A Sustainable Delta v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 2009 WL 3857417, at *7 (E.D. Cal.

4
5

Nov. 17, 2009) (quoting Coughlin, 130 F.3d at 1351). In this case, Plaintiff’s claims require

6

individualized attention because they involve an analysis of whether the care provided by

7

different defendants at two different facilities met constitutional standards. Though the

8

relevant legal standard may be the same for both cases, the facts underlying each case

9

and the defendants involved in each case are completely separate. As such, it does not

10

appear joinder is appropriate.

11
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Permissive Joinder is DENIED.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Dated:
ci4d6

April 20, 2011

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE