Sessing v. Beard, et al.

Filing 43

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Second Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint (ECF No. 42 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/16/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

NATHAN SESSING,

10
11

Plaintiff,
v.

12

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

13

Case No. 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
COMPLAINT

Defendants.

14

I.

(ECF No. 42)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

15
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
16
17

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Findings and recommendations addressing the

18

claims in Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint have been issued and are subject to twice-

19

extended deadlines for objecting to them. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for

20

leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 38).

21
22
23

The Court originally issued findings and recommendations to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third
Amended Complaint with prejudice on March 30, 2015. (ECF No. 25.) In response to
Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 32), however, the Court vacated the findings and

24
25

recommendations and permitted Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 33.)

26

After Plaintiff filed his Fourth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 34), the Court issued new

27

findings and recommendations June 29, 2015, recommending that service proceed on

28

Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim and that his First Amendment and RLUIPA claims be
1

1

dismissed. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff has been granted two extensions of time to file objections

2

to the findings and recommendations (ECF Nos. 37 & 40), and his objections are due on

3

September 30, 2015. The Court denied his first motion to amend the complaint on

4
September 3, 2015. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff filed the instant motion on September 14, 2015.
5
6
7

(ECF No. 42.)
II.

MOTION TO AMEND

8

Plaintiff’s basis for amending his complaint is that Defendants have made

9

unspecified changes to prison policies regarding inmate religious activities and that his

10
11

rights continue to be violated. Plaintiff appears to have filed the second motion to amend
before receiving the Court’s order denying his first one because he writes that “the Court

12
13
14
15

has not ruled on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend.” (ECF No. 42, at 1.)
III.

DISCUSSION
As the Court noted in its order denying Plaintiff’s first motion to amend (ECF No. 41),

16

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) expressly allows any party to object to a magistrate judge’s findings

17

and recommendations, and requires a district judge to make a de novo determination of the

18
19

portions of findings and recommendations to which objection is made. In other words,
Plaintiff is free to object – on factual or legal grounds – to any part of the Court’s June 29,

20
21

2015 findings and recommendations, and the district judge is required, by law, to consider

22

Plaintiff’s objections in determining whether or not to adopt the findings and

23

recommendations. In addition, the magistrate judge may, in response to information in a

24

party’s objections, vacate its own findings and recommendations, as this Court did after

25

reviewing Plaintiff’s objections to its March 30, 2015 findings and recommendations. (ECF

26

No. 33.)

27
Insofar as Plaintiff now possesses additional facts supporting his original claims, the
28
Court reminds him that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) requires consideration of his objections,
2

1

including whether they raise new factual issues: therefore Plaintiff may bring these

2

additional facts to the Court’s attention in his objections.

3

Insofar as Plaintiff alleges that new constitutional violations by new defendants have

4
occurred as a result of prison policy changes, Plaintiff may bring such claims in a separate
5
6

lawsuit. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) only permits a plaintiff to sue multiple

7

defendants in the same action if at least one claim against each defendant arises out of the

8

same “transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and there is a

9

“question of law or fact common to all defendants.” If defendants were involved in separate

10
11

transactions that allegedly violated Plaintiff’s rights, Plaintiff must vindicate these distinct
violations in separate lawsuits.

12
Just because claims are premised on the same type of constitutional violation(s)

13
14

does not make them factually related. Claims are only related when they are based on the

15

same precipitating event or on a series of events caused by the same precipitating event.

16

Thus, in order to bring claims arising out of policy changes made after Plaintiff filed his

17

original complaint, Plaintiff must be able to show that these policy changes were the result

18
19

of some event or transaction that also gave rise to his original claims. Otherwise, he is free
to file a separate lawsuit addressing new violations of his religious rights.

20
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend.

21
22
23

IV.

ORDER
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an

24

amended complaint (ECF No. 42) is DENIED.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated:

September 16, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4