Drumgo v. Burris et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM - Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 5/8/12. (rwc)

,

I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE

DESHAWN DRUMGO,
Plaintiff,

v.
ANTHONY BURRIS, et aI.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 12-068-GMS
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff, DeShawn Drumgo (,'Drumgo"), an inmate at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center ("VCC), Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit on January 22, 2012. (D'!.3.)
He proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court proceeds
to review and screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A.

I. BACKGROUND
Drumgo filed his complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. Having reviewed the complaint, the court construes it as
attempting to raise possible claims for violations of Drumgo's constitutional rights under the
First, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and RLUIP A. I

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in forma pauperis and
prisoner actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from a
When bringing a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him
of a federal right, and that the person who caused the deprivation acted under color of state law.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
1

I

I

defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (informa pauperis
actions); 28 U .S.C. § 1915A (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
defendant); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (prisoner actions brought with respect to prison conditions). The
court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most
favorable to a pro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County ofAllegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008);

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,93 (2007). Because Drumgo proceeds pro se, his pleading is
liberally construed and his complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94
(citations omitted).
Rule 8(d)( 1) states, in pertinent part, that "[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise and
direct." Rule 20(1 )(a)(2), which is also applicable, states, in pertinent part, as follows:
Persons may ... be joined in one action as defendants if any right to relief is
asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or
arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise
in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) (2)(A) and (B).
"In exercising its discretion [to join parties], the District Court must provide a reasoned
analysis that comports with the requirements of the Rule, and that is based on the specific fact
pattern presented by the plaintiffs and claims before the court." Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146,
157 (3d Cir. 2009); see also Boretsky v. Governor ofNew Jersey, 433 F. App'x 73 (3d Cir. 2011)
(not published).

2

,

I

III. DISCUSSION
Drumgo raises ten counts (some with

sub~parts)

against nineteen defendants. The

complaint contains unrelated claims against numerous defendants in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P.
20(a). The complaint is clearly unmanageable and the nineteen defendants would have great
difficulty responding to it. While joinder is encouraged for purposes ofjudicial economy, the
"Federal Rules do not contemplate joinder of different actions against different parties which
present entirely different factual and legal issues." Zhu v. Countrywide Realty Co., Inc., 160 F.
Supp. 2d 1210, 1225 (D. Kan. 2001) (citation omitted).
The complaint contains a host of completely unrelated claims such as conditions of
confinement, religion, access to the courts, and retaliation. The claims do not arise out of the
same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences. Nor do the claims
involve issues oflaw or fact common to all nineteen defendants. For example, each count refers
to a discrete time such as July 16,2010 (Le., Count III) or August 24, 2011 (i.e., Count VIII(b)).
Moreover, one count may refer to excessive force (i.e., Count IV), while another may raise
religious concerns (i.e., Count VII).
"The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), which substantially changed the
judicial treatment of civil rights actions by state and federal prisoners, also compels compliance
with Rule 20. Specifically, under the PLRA the full filing fee must ultimately be paid in a non­
habeas action. Allowing a prisoner to include a plethora of separate, independent claims, would
circumvent the filing fee requirements of the PLRA." Mincy v. Klem, 2007 WL 1576444, at *1
(M.D. Pa. May 30, 2007). See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,607 (7th Cir. 2007) ("Unrelated
claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of

3

, I

morass that this [multiple]-claim, [multiple]-defendant suit produced but also to ensure that
prisoners pay the required filing fees."). See also Smith v. Kirby, 53 F. App'x 14, 16 (lOth Cir.
2002) (not published) (finding no abuse of discretion where district court denied leave to amend
or supplement the complaint where the "new claims were not relevant to the claims before that
court....").
Based upon the foregoing discussion, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice
as noncompliant with Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Drumgo will be given an opportunity to file an
amended complaint. He is cautioned that the amended complaint must comply with Rule 20 and
involve only related claims or parties. Thus, to the extent that Drumgo believes that he has been
subjected to more than one violation of his rights, and to the extent that these violations are
unrelated to each other, he should file separate complaints addressing each violation along with
separate motions to proceed in forma pauperis. "It must be a new pleading which stands by itself
as an adequate complaint without reference to the complaint already filed." Young v. Keohane,
809 F.Supp. 1185 (M.D. Pa. 1992). As previously discussed, the court has identified the
following claims, almost all of them unrelated: conditions of confinement, religion, access to the
courts, and retaliation.
Drumgo is warned that the inclusion of separate, unrelated claims will be considered a
failure to comply with this court's order and will result in dismissal of the amended complaint.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. In addition, the amended complaint or new complaints filed in
compliance with this order shall not include new claims. Finally, the failure to file an amended
complaint within the specified time period will result in dismissal of the action for failure to
comply with an order of court.
4

I

I

IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the court will dismiss without prejudice the complaint for failure
to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Drumgo will be given leave to amend.
An appropriate order will be entered.

----~--~~--~

2012

5