Timothy Hanna v. Davis et al

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 18 Plaintiff's Motion to File Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/19/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TIMOTHY HANNA,
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
AS MOOT
(Document 18)

RON DAVIS, et al.,

14

Case No. 1:14-cv-01339 DLB

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
15
16

Plaintiff Timothy Hanna (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action

17 on August 28, 2014.
18

On September 10, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with

19 leave to amend. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on November 20, 2014, and it is
20 currently awaiting screening.
21

On December 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint

22 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). He states that since the filing of his original
23 complaint, he has been transferred and that “new evidence has come to light which will require the
24 Court’s attention.” Plaintiff also states that CDCR has “further contributed” to his original
25 complaint by imposing further punishment and emotional suffering. ECF No. 18, at 1.
26

At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff has the right to amend once as a matter of course.

27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is HEREBY DENIED as moot,
28 and Plaintiff may file his amended complaint without leave of court.

1

However, in amending, Plaintiff is reminded that he cannot join unrelated parties and

2 claims to this action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a) states: “A party asserting a claim, counterclaim,
3 crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as
4 it has against an opposing party.” “Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim
5 A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.
6 Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort
7 of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners
8 pay the required filing fees—for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of
9 frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees.”
10 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)); see also
11 Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2) (“Persons ... may be joined in one action as defendants if ... any right to
12 relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out
13 of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences ....”)
14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

December 19, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2