Owens v. Perez et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 21 Motion to Amend/Correct. See attached ruling and order. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 11/19/18. (Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MARVIN E. OWENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DETECTIVE E. PEREZ, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO.

3:17cv657(DFM)

RULING AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Marvin Owens, who is self-represented, filed
this civil rights action asserting a variety of claims against
numerous defendants.

(Doc. #1.)

After a review of the complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), I issued a recommended ruling
recommending the dismissal of all defendants and claims with the
exception of two claims against defendant Fitzgerald: (1) a § 1983
claim for unlawful seizure of the plaintiff's motorcycle and (2)
state law claim of defamation.

(Doc. #8.)

a

In January 2018, Judge

Chatigny approved and adopted the recommended ruling.

Pending

before the court is the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an
amended complaint.1

(Doc. #21.)

For the reasons that follow, the

motion is denied.
The plaintiff now seeks to assert new causes of action and
name 17 additional defendants.

1Judge

The plaintiff wants to add as

Chatigny referred the case to the undersigned for all
pretrial matters. (Doc. #5.)

defendants:

"the United States of America, State of Connecticut

Agencies, Officers or employees;" Officer Jorge Cintron; Officer
A. Perez; John Doe 1; John Doe 2; John Doe 3; Officer Beplio;
Officer L. Perillo; Animal Control Officer S. Lougal; Sergeant
Nikola; Sheriff Marettie; the State of Connecticut Department of
Correction; Internal Affairs Officer E. Rivera; Bridgeport Mayor
Joseph Ganim; Jane Doe; City of Bridgeport; and the Bridgeport
Police Department.

The proposed claims arise out of numerous and

varied

including:

incidents

a

September

2015

attempted

murder/carjacking; a November 2015 incident in which an officer
entered his home while he was sleeping and placed a 911 call
falsely reporting that the plaintiff had a firearm; a November
2016

incident

involving

the

plaintiff's

eviction;

being

misidentified as a "Tony Blackman," a registered sex offender; an
August 2016 entry into the plaintiff's home by an Animal Control
Officer

to

remove

the

plaintiff's

puppy;

"targeting"

and

"harassment" claims directed at Bridgeport Police; and failure to
protect and intervene claims directed at the Bridgeport Police
Department, City of Bridgeport, the State of Connecticut and the
United States.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) provides that leave to amend "should
[be] freely give[n] . . . when justice so requires."

"[L]eave to

amend, though liberally granted, may properly be denied for: 'undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,
2

repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by

virtue of

allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.'"

Ruotolo

v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008)(quoting Foman
v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Where, as in this case, a party seeks to amend a complaint to
add more defendants, "a court must also consider Rule 20(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Barclay v. Poland, No. 03–CV–
6585CJS, 2010 WL 3657664, *3 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). "Whether a plaintiff
may join separate individual defendants in one lawsuit is governed
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)." Orakwue v. City of New York, No. 11CV-6183, 2013 WL 5407211, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2013). Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits joinder of claims against
multiple defendants only if two criteria are satisfied: (1) the
claims "aris[e] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series
of transactions and occurrences;" and (2) "any question of law or
fact common to all defendants will arise in the action."
"Leave

to

amend

a

complaint

is

properly

denied

when

allegations asserted in the proposed amended complaint do not
relate to claims asserted in the original complaint."

Taylor v.

Macomber, No. 97 CIV. 4127, 1999 WL 349696, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May
27, 1999).

See also St. Louis v. McClain, No. 3:18CV1590(AWT),

2018 WL 5634941, at *1 (D. Conn. Oct. 30, 2018) (dismissing
complaint where the claims "raised in the plaintiff's complaint
3

are wholly unrelated to one another. They involve separate events
and separate defendants and, thus, do not 'aris[e] out of the same
transaction,

occurrence,

or

series

of

transactions

and

occurrences.'"); Melvin v. Connecticut, No. 3:16CV537(RNC), 2016
WL 3264155, at *2 (D. Conn. June 14, 2016)(dismissing complaint
for failure to comply with Rule 20 where the "complaint joins in
one action claims that are wholly unrelated."); Klos v. Haskell,
835 F. Supp. 710, 715–16 (W.D.N.Y. 1993) (denying leave to amend
complaint to add unrelated claims), aff'd, 48 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.
1995); Jones v. City of Buffalo, No. 96 Civ. 0739, 1997 WL 411910,
at *2 (W.D.N.Y. July 15, 1997) (denying leave to amend where
plaintiff sought to add new defendants and new claims having
"absolutely no relation to events described" in first amended
complaint).
As indicated, the operative complaint asserts claims against
defendant

Fitzgerald

defamation.

concerning

seizure

of

a

motorcycle

and

The plaintiff's proposed amended complaint fails to

comply with the requirements of Rule 20(a)(2). The claims he seeks
to add do not arise from the same occurrences and do not share
common questions of law or fact.

"As the claims do not need to be

resolved in one lawsuit, they are improperly joined."

DeAngelis

v. Long, No. 3:18CV755(MPS), 2018 WL 2138634, at *6 (D. Conn. May
9, 2018).

See Webb v. Maldonaldo, No. 3:13CV144(RNC), 2013 WL

3243135, at *3 (D. Conn. June 26, 2013) (Plaintiff did not comply
4

with Rule 20 where "the complaint joins in one action claims that
are wholly unrelated"); Wilson v. McKenna, No. 3:12CV1581(VLB),
2015 WL 1471908, at *6 (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2015) (fact that all
defendants injured plaintiff insufficient to warrant joinder).
For these reasons, the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend
(doc. #21) is denied without prejudice.
This is not a recommended ruling.

This is an order regarding

discovery and case management which is reviewable pursuant to the
"clearly erroneous" statutory standard of review.2 See 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2.
As such, it is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified
by the district judge upon motion timely made.
Any party may seek the district court's review of this
recommendation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service
of this report to serve and file written objections.

See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(d) & 72; Rule 72.2 of the Local Rules for Magistrate
Judges.

Failure to object timely to this ruling precludes any

further judicial review of the decision. Knox v. Countrywide Bank,
673 F. App'x 31, 33B34 (2d Cir. 2016).

See Small v. Sec'y of

Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per

A ruling on a motion for leave to amend is considered
nondispositive, "requiring a 'clearly erroneous' standard of
review." Sokol Holdings, Inc. v. BMB Munai, Inc., No. 05 CV 3749,
2009 WL 3467756, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2009)(collecting cases).
2

5

curiam)("failure
operates

as

a

to

object

waiver

of

timely

any

to

further

a

magistrate's

judicial

review

report
of

the

magistrate's decision"; Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d
Cir. 1992) (failure to file timely objections to Magistrate Judge's
recommended ruling waives further review of the ruling).
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 19th day of November,
2018.
___________/s/_______________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

6