Buchanan v. Garza et al

Filing 99

ORDER Denying as Moot 75 Motion for Joinder. If Plaintiff did not intend to invoke Rules 19 and 20 or use "join" in the manner the Court has explained, the Court is at a loss as to what Plaintiff is actually attempting to move the Court t o do. As a result, the Court cannot construe the motion as anything other than one under Rules 19 or 20. If Plaintiff intended to move the Court for something else, he may file another motion and explain precisely what he wants. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 7/11/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ecs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

WHITTIER BUCHANAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
E. GARZA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_______________________________ )

Civil No. 08-CV-1290-BTM(WVG)
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
FOR JOINDER
[Doc. No. 75]

17

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding in propria

18

persona, moves the Court to “join defendants in each order,1/ uniting

19

them as parties in this action.”

20

persons Plaintiff wishes to join are presently parties in this

21

action, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as moot.

(Doc. No. 75 at 1.)

Because all

22

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 and 20 govern the

23

mandatory and permissive joinder of persons who are presently not

24

parties to an action. United States ex rel. Morongo Band of Mission

25

Indians v. Rose, 34 F.3d 901, 908 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining that

26

“[t]he purpose of Rule 19(a)(2)(i) is to protect the legitimate

27
28

1/

The Court issued two orders on two separate motions to dismiss.
(Doc. Nos. 62, 67.)

1

08CV1290

1

interests of absent parties, as well as to discourage multiplicitous

2

litigation.”) (emphasis added).

3

Plaintiff points to two orders on two different motions to

4

dismiss and seeks to have the parties that remain in the suit after

5

those orders “joined.”

6

Baker, Limon, Fuga, Garza, Hodge, and Jane Doe.

7

individuals are currently named parties to this suit.

He names the following persons:

Salcedo,

All of these

8

Plaintiff’s motion is apparently based on confusion over the

9

meaning or purpose of the Rules’ joinder provisions. Because all of

10

the persons Plaintiff’s motion names are presently parties to this

11

suit, they are not outsiders and Plaintiff’s motion is not neces-

12

sary.

13

persons who are already parties.

14

Plaintiff mentions in his motion have already been asserted in his

15

First Amended Complaint.

In other words, it makes no sense for the Court to join
Moreover, all of the claims

16

If Plaintiff did not intend to invoke Rules 19 and 20 or use

17

“join” in the manner the Court has explained, the Court is at a loss

18

as to what Plaintiff is actually attempting to move the Court to do.

19

As a result, the Court cannot construe the motion as anything other

20

than one under Rules 19 or 20.

21

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

22

If Plaintiff intended to move the Court for something else, he may

23

file another motion and explain precisely what he wants.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

DATED:

July 11, 2011

26
27
Hon. William V. Gallo
U.S. Magistrate Judge

28
2

08CV1290