Loggins (ID 63088) et al v. Norwood et al

Filing 7

ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint 6 is granted. Plaintiffs are granted until May 25, 2018, in which to file a complete and proper amended complaint. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 04/25/18. Mailed to pro se party Kevin D. Loggins and Elizabeth M. Wilson by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

KEVIN D. LOGGINS, and
ELIZABETH M. WILSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CASE NO. 18-3016-SAC

JOSEPH NORWOOD, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiffs bring this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs
have paid the filing fee. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend
(Doc. 6). Plaintiffs seek leave to file an amended complaint to add claims and a defendant.
Plaintiffs are entitled to amend their complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) (a party has the
right to amend the complaint once as a matter of course if the amendment is timely filed).
However, Plaintiffs have failed to submit their proposed amended complaint with their motion.
See D. Kan. Rule 15.1(a)(2) (party filing a motion to amend must attach the proposed pleading).
The Court will give Plaintiffs the opportunity to file a complete and proper amended
complaint upon court-approved forms. In order to add claims, significant factual allegations, or
change defendants, a plaintiff must submit a complete amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15. An amended complaint is not simply an addendum to the original complaint, and instead
completely supersedes it. Therefore, any claims or allegations not included in the amended
complaint are no longer before the court. It follows that a plaintiff may not simply refer to an
earlier pleading, and the amended complaint must contain all allegations and claims that a

1

plaintiff intends to pursue in the action, including those to be retained from the original
complaint. Plaintiffs must write the number of this case (18-3016-SAC) at the top of the first
page of their amended complaint.
Plaintiffs must name every defendant in the caption of the amended complaint. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 10(a).

Plaintiffs should also refer to each defendant again in the body of the

complaint, where they must allege facts describing the unconstitutional acts taken by each
defendant including dates, locations, and circumstances.
Plaintiffs must also follow Rules 20 and 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when
filing an amended complaint.

FRCP Rule 20 governs permissive joinder of parties and

pertinently provides:
(2) Defendants. Persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if:
(A) 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
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the
action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Rule 18(a) governs joinder of claims and pertinently provides: “A party
asserting a claim . . . may join . . . as many claims as it has against an opposing party.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 18(a). While joinder is encouraged for purposes of judicial 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 Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in
George v. Smith that under “the controlling principle” in Rule 18(a), “[u]nrelated claims against
different defendants belong in different suits.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.
2007) (Under Rule 18(a), “multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against
Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.”).
2

Requiring adherence in prisoner suits to the federal rules regarding joinder of parties and
claims prevents “the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s].” Id. It
also prevents prisoners from “dodging” the fee obligations and the three strikes provisions of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act. Id. (Rule 18(a) ensures “that prisoners pay the required filing
fees—for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals
that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees.”).
In sum, under Rule 18(a), a plaintiff may bring multiple claims against a single
defendant. Under Rule 20(a)(2), he may join in one action any other defendants who were
involved in the same transaction or occurrence and as to whom there is a common issue of law or
fact. He may not bring multiple claims against multiple defendants unless the prescribed nexus
in Rule 20(a)(2) is demonstrated with respect to all defendants named in the action.
The Federal Rules authorize the court, on its own initiative at any stage of the litigation,
to drop any party and sever any claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; Nasious v. City & Cnty. of Denver
Sheriff’s Dept., 415 F. App’x 877, 881 (10th Cir. 2011) (to remedy misjoinder, the court has two
options: (1) misjoined parties may be dropped or (2) any claims against misjoined parties may be
severed and proceeded with separately). In any amended complaint, Plaintiffs should set forth
the transaction(s) or occurrence(s) which they intend to pursue in accordance with Rules 18 and
20, and limit their facts and allegations to properly-joined defendants and occurrences. Plaintiffs
must allege facts in their complaint showing that all counts arise out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and that a question of law or fact common to
all defendants will arise in this action.
Plaintiffs are given time to file a complete and proper amended complaint in which they
(1) show they have exhausted administrative remedies for all claims alleged; (2) raise only

3

properly joined claims and defendants; (3) allege sufficient facts to state a claim for a federal
constitutional violation and show a cause of action in federal court; and (4) allege sufficient facts
to show personal participation by each named defendant.
If Plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint within the prescribed time, this matter will
be decided based upon the current Complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend
Complaint (Doc. 6) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are granted until May 25, 2018, in which
to file a complete and proper amended complaint.
The clerk is directed to send § 1983 forms and instructions to Plaintiffs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated in Topeka, Kansas, on this 25th day of April, 2018.

S/ Sam A. Crow
Sam A. Crow
U.S. Senior District Judge

4