Walker v. Butler et al
Filing
1
Memorandum and Order Severing case number 15-786-MAB signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty on 4/23/2019. (cjo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES E. WALKER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL MOLDENHAUER, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
19-cv-445-NJR
Case No. 3:15-CV-786-MAB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff James Walker filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, joining
many discrete claims against separate groups of defendants in one action (Doc. 1; see Doc.
7). The Court reviewed the complaint and determined that it violated the joinder
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 (Doc. 7). The Court advised Walker
to draft separate complaints, each confined to one group of injuries and defendants (Doc.
7). One of the narrowed complaints would serve as the operative complaint for this
action, and each of the other proposed complaints would be treated as a motion to sever
(Doc. 7).
On September 14, 2015, Walker submitted his First Amended Complaint in this
case, along with three other proposed complaints (Docs. 8, 10). The Court, however,
determined that each of the complaints also violated the joinder requirements of Rule 20
and they were stricken (Doc. 11).
On October 26, 2015, Walker submitted six proposed complaints (Docs. 15, 16).
Page 1 of 3
This batch of complaints again raised Rule 20 problems (Doc. 17). In light of his successive
failed attempts to cure his Rule 20 problems, the Court determined that Walker was not
competent to plead his case without the benefit of counsel (Doc. 17). Attorney Gary
Meadows was subsequently recruited as counsel for Plaintiff (Doc. 26). Mr. Meadows
filed a Second Amended Complaint in February 2016 (Doc. 34). He also tendered via
email to District Judge Michael Reagan three additional proposed complaints for the
Court to sever into separate cases (see Doc. 33). For reasons unbeknownst to the
undersigned, the proposed complaints were apparently overlooked by the Court and
they were never severed into separate causes of action.
Mr. Meadows was replaced by Attorney Scott Mosier as counsel for Mr. Walker in
June 2016 (Doc. 39). Mr. Mosier litigated this case on behalf of Mr. Walker until a
settlement was reached in September 2018 (Docs. 114, 115). In February 2019, Mr. Walker
attempted to bring the issue of his unaddressed proposed complaints to the Court’s
attention by filing a pro se motion (Doc. 123), but his motion was stricken because the
Court does not accept pro se filings from parties who are represented by counsel (Doc.
124). Mr. Mosier then filed a motion on March 13, 2019, asking the Court to order each of
Walker’s proposed complaints to be severed into a separate action (Doc. 125). There was
no objection to the motion.
The motion to sever cases (Doc. 125) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to SEVER Proposed Complaint #1 (Doc. 125-1, pp. 1–7) into a separate
action, to SEVER Proposed Complaint #2 (Doc. 125-1, pp. 8–12) into another separate
action, and to SEVER Proposed Complaint #3 (Doc. 125-1, pp. 13–17) into yet another
Page 2 of 3
separate action. The three severed cases actions will have newly assigned case numbers,
Walker will be required to pay a $350.00 filing fee in each new case, and the complaints
shall undergo preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In each new case, the
Clerk is DIRECTED to file this Memorandum and Order, Walker’s IFP motion (Doc. 6),
and the respective Proposed Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 23, 2019
s/ Mark A. Beatty
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?