McCullock v. Brown et al
Filing
33
ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motions for Permissive Joinder (ECF No. 15) in Cejas v. Brown, 18-cv-543-WQH-JLB; (ECF No. 17 ) in McCullock v. Brown, 18-cv-548-WQH-JLB; (ECF No. 7) in Austin v. Brown, 18-cv-600-WQH-JLB; (ECF No. 8 ) in Harmon v. Brown, 18-cv-1030-WQH-JLB are Denied. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 11/29/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
ZACHARY HARMON,
vs.
10
11
Defendants.
ANDREW A. CEJAS,
vs.
15
ROBERT BROWN; et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
ROBERT MCCULLOCK,
vs.
20
ROBERT BROWN; et al.,
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
Case No. 18-cv-548-WQH-JLB
Plaintiff,
19
21
Case No. 18-cv-543-WQH-JLB
Plaintiff,
14
16
ORDER
ROBERT BROWN; et al.,
12
13
Case No. 18-cv-1030-WQH-JLB
Plaintiff,
9
JAMES AUSTIN,
Case No. 18-cv-600-WQH-JLB
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERT BROWN; et al.,
Defendants.
27
28
1
1
HAYES, Judge:
2
Before the Court are the Motions for Permissive Joinder filed by Plaintiff Andrew
3
A. Cejas (ECF No. 15) in Cejas v. Brown, 18-cv-543-WHQ-JLB; Plaintiff Robert
4
McCullock (ECF No. 17) in McCullock v. Brown, 18-cv-548-WQH-JLB; Plaintiff James
5
Austin (ECF No. 7) in Austin v. Brown, 18-cv-600-WQH-JLB; Plaintiff Zachary Harmon
6
(ECF No. 8) in Harmon v. Brown, 18-cv-1030-WQH-JLB.
7
I.
Background
8
In March and May 2018, Plaintiffs, currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan
9
Correctional Facility (RJD) and appearing pro se, each filed a complaint alleging RJD has
10
failed to provide weekly Buddhist services in violation of the Free Exercise Clause, the
11
Equal Protection Clause, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
12
On August 14, 2018, Plaintiffs filed identical Motions for Permissive Joinder. On October
13
24, 2018, Defendants Robert Brown, Fabrice Hadjadj, J. Davies, P. Covello, L. Eshelman,
14
and D. Paramo filed Opposition (ECF No. 21) in Harmon v. Brown, 18-cv-1030-WQH-
15
JLB. Plaintiffs did not file a reply.
16
II.
Contentions of the Parties
17
Plaintiffs contend that their claims “arise out of the same series of transactions and/or
18
occurrences” the “same Constitutional [v]iolations” and “arise common questions of law
19
and fact in each case[.]” (ECF No. 81 at 1). Plaintiffs assert that joinder2 of all Plaintiffs
20
“is based on the principles of fundamental fairness to all parties” and “would provide the
21
Court[] judicial economy, same witnesses, and same document proof of claims.” Id.
22
Defendants contend that joinder of the four cases should be denied because “(1) the
23
facts of each Plaintiffs’ claim requires an individualized analysis to determine if his
24
25
26
1
27
2
28
All record citations are to Harmon v. Brown, 18-cv-1030-WQH-JLB, unless otherwise noted.
Plaintiffs cite both Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 and 20(a). However, Plaintiffs have made no
showing that any Plaintiffs are “required parties” pursuant to Rule 19. The Court analyzes Plaintiffs’
claims under Rule 20.
2
1
practice of Buddhism was burdened and whether he exhausted his administrative remedies;
2
(2) Plaintiffs’ status as pro se inmates makes joinder impractical because they could be
3
relocated or paroled during the pendency of the litigation; (3) each matter has a
4
significantly different procedural posture; and (4) the matters have already been deemed
5
related and assigned to the same judge, thereby alleviating any concerns regarding
6
consistency in rulings, and conserving judicial resources.” (ECF No. 21 at 2).
7
III.
Legal Standard
8
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(1), persons may join in one action as
9
plaintiffs if: (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with
10
respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
11
occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the
12
action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20.
13
Even if the standard for permissive joinder under Rule 20(a) is satisfied, district
14
courts have the discretion to refuse joinder in the interests of avoiding prejudice and delay,
15
ensuring judicial economy, or safeguarding principles of fundamental fairness. See
16
Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Even once [Rule 20]
17
requirements are met, a district court must examine whether permissive joinder would
18
‘comport with the principles of fundamental fairness’ or would result in prejudice to either
19
side.”); League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917
20
(9th Cir. 1977) (“Rule 20 . . . is to be construed liberally in order to promote trial
21
convenience and to expedite the final determination of disputes . . . .”).
22
IV.
Ruling of the Court
23
An action brought by multiple incarcerated plaintiffs proceeding pro se presents
24
procedural and logistical problems that can cause delay and confusion. Plaintiffs in a
25
joined action must not only agree on the content of filings—they must also be able to obtain
26
original signatures from all other plaintiffs on filings as well. Pro se plaintiffs are not
27
permitted to authorize one individual to sign documents for them. Delay can arise from
28
the transfer of inmates to other facilities or institutions, the changes in address that occur
3
1
when inmates are released on parole, and the difficulties faced by inmates who attempt to
2
communicate with other plaintiffs who have been released. See, e.g., Lewis v. Nevada,
3
2014 WL 65799, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 7, 2014) (“Following upon plaintiff[‘s] . . . release
4
from physical custody, it will be exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to efficiently file further
5
multi-plaintiff papers in a joined action. Plaintiffs are not in a position to efficiently and
6
effectively confer with one another, review proposed papers, and then each sign papers for
7
filing within deadlines established in the case.”); Davis v. United States, 2007 WL
8
2225791 (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2007) (same).
9
In this case, Plaintiffs are currently housed in facility D at the RJD, where they can
10
“easily collaborate, obtain signatures, and otherwise manage their cases jointly.” (ECF No.
11
21 at 7).
12
collaborating on the content of filings and obtaining the requisite signatures in the event
13
one is transferred to another facility or released during the pendency of this litigation.3
However, Plaintiffs would likely face substantial difficulty and delay
14
In the interests of preserving judicial resources, efficiency, and the prevention of
15
inconsistent rulings, pursuant to Local Rule 40.1, this Court has deemed the cases at issue
16
here “related” and assigned them all to the same District Judge and Magistrate Judge. The
17
Court finds that based on the facts of these cases, joinder of all Plaintiffs into a single action
18
would be more likely to cause confusion and delay than to “expedite the final determination
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court grants Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the CDCR inmate locator website for the
entry of Zachary Harmon, inmate number AX3071. (ECF No. 21 at 2 n.2). The California Department
of Corrections inmate locator states that as of the date of this Order, Plaintiff Harmon is eligible for
parole in August of 2019.
3
4
1
of [the] disputes[.]”4 See League to Save Lake Tahoe, 558 F.2d at 917. Plaintiffs’ Motions
2
for Permissive Joinder are denied.5
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motions for Permissive Joinder (ECF
4
No. 15) in Cejas v. Brown, 18-cv-543-WQH-JLB; (ECF No. 17) in McCullock v. Brown,
5
18-cv-548-WQH-JLB; (ECF No. 7) in Austin v. Brown, 18-cv-600-WQH-JLB; (ECF No.
6
8) in Harmon v. Brown, 18-cv-1030-WQH-JLB are DENIED.
7
Dated: November 29, 2018
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
4
Contributing to the potential for confusion is the fact that these four cases are not of identical
procedural posture. Some cases present unique issues not common to all Plaintiffs. For example, in a
Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF No. 20) currently pending in Cejas v. Brown, 18-cv-543WQH-JLB, Defendants contend that Plaintiff Cejas brought and settled the same claim in 2015, and thus
his current action is barred under the principle of res judicata.
Plaintiffs’ Motion requests permissive joinder under Rules 19 and 20(a), however the relief they
seek—a single action that includes all Plaintiffs—is also consistent with a motion for consolidation
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2). The Court notes that under a Rule 42(a) analysis “[t]he
district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district”
Investors Research Co. v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, 877 F.2d
777 (9th Cir.1989), and “[i]n determining whether to consolidate actions, the Court weighs the interest
of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by
consolidation.” Southwest Marine, Inc., v. Triple A. Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal.
1989). Even liberally construing Plaintiffs’ Motion as a motion for consolidation under Rule 42(a), the
Court finds that the potential for confusion and delay outweighs any convenience that would be
achieved through consolidation.
5
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?