RODRIGUEZ v. CHATMAN et al

Filing 185

ORDER: This case also contains unrelated claims. The Court has ordered some of those claims to proceed. In order to facilitate the orderly resolution of the cases and to ensure justice for all parties, the Cour t SEVERS those unrelated claims. The Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to open a new action for the following claims against the following Defendants: Eighth Amendment excessive force against Defendant Clupper; First Amendment retaliation against D efendants Clupper, Kyles, Powell, and Logan; and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs against Defendant Burnside. The Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claims against Defendants Bishop, Chatman, Humphrey, Logan, McMill ian, and Powell will remain in 5:15-cv-2. Defendants Clupper, Kyles, and Burnside should be terminated from 5:15-cv-2. The Defendants shall file such responsive pleadings as may be appropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Pris on Litigation Reform Act. The Court calls the attention of the parties to the discovery schedule set forth in 12 Judge Weigles Order and Recommendation, a copy of which is attached. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 10/6/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Judge Weigle's Order) (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

HJALMAR RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
Warden BRUCE CHATMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-2(MTT)

ORDER
This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claims that his First Amendment, Eighth
Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated in multiple ways
during his confinement. See generally Doc. 133-1. The case is one of eleven that has
been filed by inmates in Tier III of the Special Management Unit of Georgia Diagnostic
and Classification Prison in Jackson, Georgia. See, e.g., Doc. 147 at 1. Because
“[e]ach case presents similar claims and fact patterns alleging constitutional violations of
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights,” the Magistrate Judge has consolidated
discovery in the cases and has stayed discovery in all except one of the cases. See,
e.g., id. at 1-2.
However, this case also contains unrelated claims. The Court has ordered some
of those claims to proceed. Doc. 183. In order to facilitate the orderly resolution of the
cases and to ensure justice for all parties, the Court SEVERS those unrelated claims.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (“On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just
terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.”); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 42(b) (“For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize,
the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims,
crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.”). The Clerk of Court is hereby
DIRECTED to open a new action for the following claims against the following
Defendants: Eighth Amendment excessive force against Defendant Clupper; First
Amendment retaliation against Defendants Clupper, Kyles, Powell, and Logan; and
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs against Defendant
Burnside. The Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claims against
Defendants Bishop, Chatman, Humphrey, Logan, McMillian, and Powell will remain in
5:15-cv-2. Defendants Clupper, Kyles, and Burnside should be terminated from 5:15cv-2.
The Defendants shall file such responsive pleadings as may be appropriate
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The
Court calls the attention of the parties to the discovery schedule set forth in Judge
Weigle’s Order and Recommendation (Doc. 12), attached.
SO ORDERED, this 6th day of October, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-