Ledoux v. Louisiana et al

Filing 11

ORDER TO SEVER: The Clerk of Court is Ordered to 1) sever defendants Steven Coward, Tara Hawkins, Alberto Depuy, William Durrett, Cyndie McManus and Dustin Abshire from instant suit, 2) open new civil rights suit listing above as defendants, 3) make a copy of doc 4 in current case and place copy in newly opened suit, 4) make a copy of this order to sever and place copy in newly opened suit, and 5) issue an in forma pauperis filing form to plaintiff as well as any necessary deficiency orders. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay on 5/29/2013. (crt,Gregory, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

DEREK LEDOUX
# 488348

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-CV-1098
SECTION P

VS.

JUDGE MINALDI

STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL

MAGISTRATE KAY
ORDER TO SEVER

Before the court is Derek Ledoux’s pro se civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983) complaint filed
in forma pauperis on June 9, 2011. Plaintiff filed a second civil rights complaint (Doc. 4) on
May 11, 2012, in which he brought unrelated claims against multiple defendants not named in
his original complaint. Via a separate report and recommendation, this court is recommending
that plaintiff’s first complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed for failure to state a claim and as frivolous.
It is the second complaint that is the subject of this order to sever.
Background
Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of Louisiana’s Department of Public Safety and
Corrections (LDOC) and is currently incarcerated at Calcasieu Correctional Center (CCC) in
Lake Charles, Louisiana. His initial complaint (Doc. 1) centers around allegations of price
gouging or price fixing on the part of the following named defendants: State of Louisiana,
Calcasieu Sheriff’s Department, Department of Justice, Department of Corrections, and Keefe
Commissary Network Sales Co.

The focus of plaintiff’s second complaint (Doc. 4) is an

ineffective assistance of counsel claim in regard to his 2009 conviction for felony carnal
knowledge of a juvenile. Doc. 4-1, p. 1. The defendants named in his second complaint are
-1-

public defender Steven Coward; assistant district attorneys Tara Hawkins, Alberto Depuy, and
William Durrett; court reporter Cyndie McManus; and Dustin Abshire.
As relief for the above, plaintiff seeks to have the charges dropped, his name cleared, and
compensatory damages for pain and suffering from the emotional distress suffered by him and
his family. Doc. 4, p. 4.
Law and Analysis
The claims asserted in plaintiff’s second complaint are subject to being severed by the
court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 21 for improper joinder. Under Rule
20(a)(2), permissive joinder of defendants is proper 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. Rule 20(a)(2) is designed to promote judicial economy and trial convenience.
See Guedry v. Marino, 164 F.R.D. 181, 184 (E.D.La. 1995). Courts have described Rule
20(a)(2)(A) and Rule 20(a)(2)(B) as creating a two-prong test to determine whether joinder of
parties is proper. Acevedo v. Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc., 600 F.3d 516, 521 (5th Cir.
2010). However, even if both prongs of Rule 20(a)(2) are satisfied, district courts have the
discretion to refuse joinder in the interest of avoiding prejudice and delay. Id.
Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows: “Misjoinder of
parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On motion or on its own… [t]he court
may…sever any claim against a party.” “The trial court has broad discretion to sever issues to be
tried before it.” Brunet v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 15 F.3d 500, 505 (5th Cir. 1994).
The two prong test of Rule 20 is not met as the plaintiff’s claim against the defendants
do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and
-2-

there is not one common question of law or fact connecting all of the plaintiff’s claims. The
claims against the different sets of defendants named in each complaint will involve separate
witnesses, different evidence, and different legal theories and defenses. Therefore, this court will
sever all claims and all defendants named in plaintiff’s second complaint (Doc. 4) from this
action.
Accordingly,
THE CLERK OF COURT IS ORDERED TO: (1) sever defendants Steven Coward,
Tara Hawkins, Alberto Depuy, William Durrett, Cyndie McManus, and Dustin Abshire from the
instant suit; (2) open a new suit civil rights suit listing the above individuals as defendants; (3)
make a copy of document #4 filed in the current case and place the copy in the newly opened
suit; (4) make a copy of this order to sever and place the copy in the newly opened suit; and, (4)
to issue an in forma pauperis filing form to plaintiff as well as any necessary deficiency orders.
THUS DONE this 29th day of May, 2013.

-3-