Estrada v. Macias et al

Filing 35

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 24 Motion for Joinder signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/5/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID ESTRADA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
TERESA MACIS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

19

Case No.: 1:15-cv-001292-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR JOINDER
[ECF No. 24]

Plaintiff David Estrada is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for joinder, filed April 8, 2016. Plaintiff seeks

20

to join claims with case number 1:15-cv-1335 EPG David Estrada v. Macias, et.al., which is pending

21

statutory screening review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff contends that with respect to Defendant

22

Dr. J. Wang he “will show that various failures to provide him treatment were part of the same series

23

of transactions or occurrences as required by Rule 20(a).” (ECF No. 24, Mot. at 1-2.)

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 governs permissive joinder, and identifies two prerequisites

25

for the joinder of defendants: (1) a right to relief must be asserted against the defendants jointly,

26

severally or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or

27

series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) some question of law or fact common to all defendants

28

will arise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). District courts retain broad discretion in applying Rule 20. See
1

1

Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296-1297 (9th Cir. 2000) (whether severance is

2

appropriate under Rule 20 lies within the sound discretion of the trial court); Desert Empire Bank v.

3

Insurance Co. of North America, 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980) (even if the requirements of

4

Rule 20 are satisfied, courts must examine other relevant factors to determine whether permissive

5

joinder will comport with principles of fundamental fairness).
At this juncture there is no basis to join this action with case number 1:15-cv-1335 EPG David

6
7

Estrada v. Macias, et.al., as Plaintiff fails to make any showing that trying Plaintiff’s claims together

8

will produce a common answer to the crucial issues presented in the instant action. Accordingly,

9

Plaintiff’s motion for joinder is DENIED, without prejudice.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

13

May 5, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2